GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, one thing I would just ask you to bear in mind about this, is that owing to the noise pollution, a high-speed train has quite an impact along those stretches of the track that do not run under the mountain of course, and I would ask the Commissioner to consider this: why should it not be possible to make the breakthrough we need, and which will solve the problem between Munich and Verona in the long-term, with something along the lines of the Brenner base tunnel? After all, it would not be too difficult to transfer all the through heavy goods traffic to rail and bring it through the mountain, thereby solving the problem once and for all. All we need is a ban on transiting heavy goods traffic. This would relieve pressure on the Brenner motorway, which is under great strain and also causing a few problems of a socio-political nature, and would also free it up for private vehicles and local heavy goods traffic.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to emphasise the fact that it is quite typical of the way Parliament is removed from reality to have voted on the Morillon report at the end of the sitting, after the vote on detergents and motor vehicles. *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the crisis in the international coffee market (Parliament adopted the resolution) President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report Jillian Evans (A5-0102/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Many thanks to the Commissioner for his answer. In Sweden, the maximum speed is 110 km/h, but now many Swedes have to have tyres that can cope with speeds of up to 250 km/h. That costs a lot of money, of course, and causes a lot of inconvenience for car owners. There are really no aspects of road safety necessitating this type of tyre. I therefore think that it remains very difficult to justify making such demands, entailing large additional costs for car owners. I understood from the Commissioner’s answer that an owner changing the tyres on his car for the second time is entitled to have another type of tyre, if permitted by the national authorities. Is that a correct interpretation of your answer?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, let me begin by saying that I am a little surprised to see this report before the plenary sitting, because we in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities originally decided that it should only be adopted in the Committee. I also hope that the Bureau and all the political groups are aware of the fact that the numbering of the recitals and the paragraphs in the report differ from one language version to another, which means that, in a possible vote in the plenary sitting tomorrow, it will be incredibly difficult to know what we are voting on. When it comes to the actual content of the report, I do not think that the consequences of globalisation for women should be dealt with on the basis of the demands made by an ageing population upon the EU. Humanly speaking, that is the wrong end at which to begin. I am sympathetic to Mrs Avilés Perea’s personal views on the issues of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants. I completely share the view that they must be accorded human rights, but the report as a whole does not attach enough importance to these issues. We cannot therefore vote in favour of the report in a possible vote to be held in the plenary sitting tomorrow. I would also appeal to Mrs Avilés Perea to withdraw the report and to take on board the discussions in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, together with the outcome of the vote taken in that Committee.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to start by twice expressing my thanks: first to our rapporteur, Danielle Auroi, for her work on this report, which reveals her considerable efforts to try to synthesise and extend the scope of these directives. Secondly, I wish to thank the Commission, because I greatly welcome the fact that it has presented these proposals to provide a clear and transparent legal basis for funding comparative tests and trials for seeds and plants. I therefore think that we are all on the right track and that this is precisely what is needed. The fact is, however, that there are some differences of opinion on how far this work should go. On this I agree with various fellow Members who have spoken and with the rapporteur herself on the need to take a broader view of the entire issue of testing seeds and plants. We must therefore address this issue in a way that better reflects the reality of the situation. Of course, we can then disagree on the issue of whether or not to regulate the issue of mixing pure seeds with seeds containing GMOs. My views on this matter are not based on ideology and like Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, I also believe that we must accept what science has to say and that we must adopt a limit that entails no risk of excessive contamination. I also agree, however, with the need to ensure that we have pure seeds that are, as far as possible, uncontaminated by GMOs. For this reason, it would perhaps be worthwhile providing for special funding only for seeds not containing GMOs, covering organic farming, of course, but also traditional farming, which uses traditional regional and local seeds and varieties that are not sold on any large scale but which ought to be safeguarded from the point of view of genetics.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted against the report from the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON interception system. The report has a positive aspect, but all too many negative ones. The positive aspect is the Committee’s confirmation that ECHELON exists. Among the negative aspects, the following three points, in particular, must be emphasised: 1. In spite of the Committee’s conclusion that ECHELON does in fact exist, no precise political consequences of this have been successfully formulated. In our view, that is the least that could have been expected of a politically elected assembly. 2. The committee has chosen to focus upon the illegal interception of communications from private businesses and completely plays down the serious infringement of the right to privacy as formulated in, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. What is more, the Committee draws no political conclusions in this area other than that the obligation under the Human Rights Convention to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights is also of benefit to individual citizens, who are urged to use encryption to protect themselves against the illegal interception of communications. 3. The Committee observes that one Member State is participating in the ECHELON cooperation on the illegal interception of communications. On this issue too, however, it does not draw any political conclusions at all. On the contrary, it encourages speeding up the development of European cooperation on intelligence matters – a form of cooperation in which the ECHELON country, Great Britain, is free to participate if it so wishes. We are disappointed in the outcome of the Committee’s work. The European Parliament has not complied with its responsibility to strengthen human rights. The fight for human rights is seemingly strongest when solemn speeches have to be made. When it comes to practical action, citizens’ rights are subordinated to the interests of private enterprise.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although I can do no other than underline what Mrs Smet has said, the great progress made in the new Member States must not blind us to the continuing problems they have in the social sphere, or to their mounting difficulties with employment. Economic adjustments, combined with processes of industrial restructuring under which mainly workers have suffered, is making for ever-greater problems in the new Member States’ labour markets. Now, when they are on the threshold of accession, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the overall goals and ambitions of a Social Europe will remain and cannot be lowered. The successful implementation of the Lisbon strategy in an enlarged Europe is dependent on social standards and on social legislation, both of which are means to that end. Going beyond that, the Social Affairs Committee urges the new Member States, in their political agendas, to give more attention to human capital. In a European Union of 25 states, there is no place for retrograde developments or social inertia, which would pave the way for new conflict. Generally speaking, and by way of conclusion, let me say that the tendency to treat both social affairs and employment matters as ‘soft law’ is a problem in terms of the overall future development of the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have a few very brief comments. We are debating the planning phase and guidelines for the four Community initiatives without access to any substantive and complete appraisal of the previous period. This is not very good at all. Programmes and objectives usually turn out to be far too ambitious and their results are not always satisfactory, while the lack of transparency and complexity of the plans often allow considerable scope for mismanagement and even fraud. The Community initiatives we are debating could play a positive part subject to certain preconditions. They must, however, not be subordinated to the objectives and aspirations of a more generally negative economic and social policy, but must develop their own self-sufficient role. For example, adapting EQUAL to the objectives of employability and the flexibilisation of labour relations transforms this initiative into a new version of local employment contracts. Extending the LEADER initiative to every area in the Union entails the risk of marginalising deprived areas even more, to the benefit of more developed areas. The INTERREG initiative must include eligible areas with special emphasis on border areas, islands and both mountain and non-mountain areas, such as the prefecture of Arta in Greece, whose omission from Annex I of the Commission’s communication is ill-considered.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, so much is clear. You spoke about a politically binding code, but this is not enforceable. We cannot jolt our governments’ consciences. That is a sad thing in connection with arms, because these are not everyday goods. Nevertheless, they are all too easily used in this way. As regards the report by Mr von Wogau, I think that he is right in noting, on the fourth opportunity we have had to give our reaction to the Council’s annual report, that progress can be noted once more, on paper, in reporting and transparency. As regards the effectiveness of the agreements, I have the impression that these are chiefly concerned with preventing unfair competition and with not tormenting each other. Brokering, too, is to be taken rather more seriously. I must say that I am not so optimistic in practice. European arms exports are clearly rising instead of falling. Many believe that military expenditure should be increased; while we, on the contrary, are inclined to think that it should be reduced. The military-industrial complex is organising in order to lobby Brussels intensively. Large parts of the world continue to be inundated with arms that are used not only against the people living there, but also against our own peacekeeping forces. I saw a BBC report in which French peacekeeping forces in Eastern Congo were fired at with arms supplied with the express complicity of Rwanda or Uganda. When I look at the list of suppliers, I see that there are still European countries that either directly supply arms or let arms be purchased using budgetary support, which amounts to the same thing. I should also like to point out that, in recent weeks, refugees from Uganda have been arriving in Chad. NGOs on site have reported to us that the proliferation of small arms in that area was the direct cause of the outbreak of armed conflict. I read here that inquiries have been made into how arms can be supplied for humanitarian purposes. I think that it is a bit much to state that this could be possible. I do not acknowledge that possibility. In my country, the Arms Act was very strict, and, back then, it was said that no arms were to be supplied to regions of conflict. Nevertheless, people found an opportunity to export them to Nepal, and now we even have regionalisation of the arms trade. At European level, the Code of Conduct may have been adopted, but there is a problem of interpretation, and, as our fellow Members have already said, the grey area is extensive. Exporting arms to regions that are somewhat unstable of course means exporting to the best customers, because willing buyers do not discriminate. Irrespective of whether the country is rich or poor, arms are being bought and apparently paid for, if necessary with raw materials stolen from the country itself, as is the case in Eastern Congo.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I only partly agree with Mr Krarup. I agree with him in the sense that there is a democratic crisis. This Parliament is in a crisis because we come under permanent attack by many of the public media in all the Member States for the indefensible state in which we are made to work at the moment. We all know that people in this House doing exactly the same job are paid a huge range of different salaries for it. There is only one thing which has made this tolerable. That has been an expenses regime which would otherwise be totally indefensible because it is absolutely untransparent. We are greatly indebted to Mr Rothley for bringing us so far down the road. We must take the step that will make it possible for this Parliament to stand tall and stand legitimate with a proper scheme on a common salary and a common, defensible and transparent expenses regime. Putting it quite simply, I would like to see to it that we have a system that can be understood, that pays people the costs they incur and that pays us all a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. It should be slightly smaller but it would just have been gesture politics to retable the amendment we put in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market since it was obviously not going to be carried. I respectfully disagree with Mr Rothley on the issue of privileges and immunities. I would like to see it in the Statute in something like the way he suggests, but frankly the provisions there strike me as much too sweeping, covering far too much. Immunity in these Berlusconi days is a difficult concept and we should not challenge our electorate. It is better to stick with the regime that we have, with the primary law that we currently have. Most of the amendments that we, the liberals and others have put forward seek to keep that basis for immunities. With these crucial amendments, the resolution can be carried. Finally, with great respect to everybody here, I do not regard myself here as an employee of the European Union: I am a representative of my constituents. I do not ever wish to pay tax on my income at a different level or on a different basis from my constituents. The permissive Belgian compromise that would let Member States bring a Member's taxation liability to the level of his constituents is a good one. I hope that we can find a way of making it legally valid.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, thank you Commissioner for being here with us today and for the statement you have made. You should be in no doubt that you have the support of all parliamentary groups, including mine, of course, for all the measures and positions that you have announced for the forthcoming discussions in the World Trade Organisation. Less than two months ago, Parliament’s Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy held a hearing, at which one of the speakers was the Chairman of Euratex, the textile employers’ association, who concluded his speech by asking what we could do to solve the problems facing the textile industry. From these benches, I now wish to say, in line with the Commission, that these sittings constitute part of the answers that the sector is asking us to provide in order to remedy an extremely serious situation, which I will not go into again, since the Commissioner is fully aware of it. With regard to issues of market access, the Commissioner has said that until other Member countries demonstrate greater openness, we will not lower tariffs and customs duties. I should like to ask you whether, since there is such a significant imbalance between the amounts we charge and those charged by other countries, in the event that significant agreements are not concluded in this field, we can once again put forward the idea of increasing customs duties to whatever level we wish on textile products imported from these other countries that are not willing to lower their own. Lastly, Commissioner, I wish to ask you a very specific question concerning the recognition of industrial property rights. We are frequently told by representatives of the textile sector that, with regard to some of these property rights, such as design, which is not as visible as others such as trademarks, although countries have signed TRIPs agreements within the World Trade Organisation, they tend not to comply with them. I should like to ask you whether you intend to take any action on this matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish first of all to congratulate the three rapporteurs on their excellent work and say that enormous progress has been made in recent years at European level in the field of consumer protection, with the emphasis, of course, on food safety. It is true that too many food scandals had to occur for this to happen, but even so, we have reasons to be proud of the EU’s legislative work in this field. Now that we are beginning to draw up solutions for resolving other consumer protection issues, many people have expressed doubts as to the need to find common solutions in the EU. It should be recalled that the success of the European Union’s food safety policy both in protecting the consumer and in balancing the internal market, has not been achieved only through more restrictive rules being established for food for human and animal food consumption. This success is also the result of these rules being communitarised. Consequently, given the enormous fragmentation and even incompatibility of trade and consumer protection rules in the Member States, which simply distort competition, bring down quality standards and undermine consumer confidence, I am in favour of all consumer protection legislation being harmonised to the highest possible degree. With a view to this effort to harmonise, I believe that the European Union must start by defining a framework directive on commercial practices that clearly defines business operators’ responsibilities to consumers. I believe, however, that there are other areas in which the European Union and the Commission must pursue their work, in particular on legislation to protect human health against the effects of electromagnetic fields, especially those created by mobile phones. The fact that the largest mobile phone companies are European should not prevent us from doing so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whatever the value of the euro, the primary objective of the European Central Bank, as you have reminded us, Mr Duisenberg, is to maintain price stability without worrying about the economic and social consequences which come in the wake of these decisions. That is why the ECB can increase its interest rates, at the risk of slowing down investment and dampening growth. This hike follows on from the increase in American rates. The persistent weakness of the euro against the dollar is also the result of the huge drain on capital leaving the European Union. According to experts, nearly 950 billion French francs net poured out of the euro zone in 1999 in the form of direct investments abroad, i.e. 43% more than in 1998. In short, the euro is used mainly for borrowing in order to finance speculative projects, even as far away as the United States. The decision to compete with the United States by promoting the financial markets leads up a blind alley. It needs a boom in employment, training, research and salaries to enable us to develop a resolutely modern European social model. To do so, social and monetary sides must join forces. But the ECB is the only master on board when it comes to monetary policy. In the name of the fight against inflation and strict compliance with the Stability Pact, it even goes so far as to call the governments of the Member States to order, but never has a word to say in criticism of the speculation sweeping the financial markets. It advocates wage restraint, flexibility and job insecurity. It fans the flames of privatisation in order to boost competitiveness and the return on capital. It also advocates ‘modernising’ social protection and reducing unemployment costs, thus applying the same logic as the agreement in France between employers and two trades union, an agreement which punishes the unemployed and makes them feel guilty. We must re-open the debate on the remit of the European Central Bank in order to find a new credit policy which takes account of employment criteria. We cannot merely tack a social chapter on to neo-liberal economic policy. The alternative in a truly social Europe would be to substitute a growth, employment and training pact for the stability pact. And if we are to implement this approach, it is vital that we strengthen control of the ECB by the European Parliament and the national parliaments.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, recent events show that the EU Member States cannot now and will not in the future agree on the organisation of a common defence policy. The EU Member States that belong to NATO have also been sharply divided in their views on the Iraq war, which reflects their general attitude to the new international order that is taking shape. This makes it difficult to establish a common defence policy. The neutral Member States have not wanted and do not want to have the Union become a military alliance or military superpower. In these circumstances it would be wise if the EU just kept to crisis management tasks, with NATO continuing to function as an arrangement for collective security for those EU Member States that wish to belong to such an organisation. Germany, France, Belgium and other like-minded countries could embark on a programme of close and mutual military cooperation within the framework of NATO and establish a Defence Community that would act as a strong European pillar of NATO. This arrangement would strengthen the partnership between Europe and North America, which is important to us all. Europe would have its own defence identity within the framework of NATO, but the Defence Community would cooperate closely with the United States of America. The other EU Member States, both those that belong to NATO and the neutral countries, would play a role in ensuring that the transatlantic relationship is preserved and strengthened. The creation of a Defence Community could lead to even more universal internal differentiation in the Union on the basis of the ideas that leading French and German experts and politicians have been proposing for years. The core of the Union would thus have separate institutions, as, for example, Germany’s Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has proposed.

Political group: ELDR