GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner de Palacio, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the proposal for a regulation on access to gas transmission networks. It is important to have reliable rules for access to networks. We found that with the gas directive last year. My group believes the proposal should be further discussed together with the amendments tabled by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Commissioner, there are four points I would like to recommend you consider in greater detail in the Council debate. Firstly, investment incentives. We can talk about markets here for a long time. If we have no investors, then in the end we have no market either. The Commission has often referred to the great risks carried by investors in the gas sector – exploration, pipeline construction. There is competition in pipelines; there already was when the monopolies existed. That is how the market came into being and it must remain clear that tariffs based on costs alone may deter investments. My second remark is please will you consider whether more weight can be given to cross-border gas transport. Thirdly, comitology. The problem is not comitology itself, but the question is whether Article 9 is in a correct relationship to Articles 3 to 8, that is whether the most important points really are in Articles 3 to 8. This can perhaps be improved when it is discussed in the Council. My fourth comment, Commissioner de Palacio, is that of course everyone who has anything to say about the market is important, regulators, network operators and above all investors, and it is absolutely clear that you talk to them before you make proposals to Parliament and Council; you always have done. Now they would all like to be mentioned in the legislation. Personally, I do not see why they should be, because I believe the Commission knows how to do its job, but if it would give those I have just named pleasure to be mentioned in a recital, then I do not really mind. Then I would like to say something about the other report on security of natural gas supply. It is correct that we depend very much on imports. It is therefore right that we should be concerned with this and oblige the Member States to introduce a suitable policy. Now Parliament has adopted at first reading a different text than the one the Commission presented and the Council has backed Parliament in the matter. We are therefore now speaking about a different text than the Commission originally presented and in our view this text no longer contains any rules for the internal market. This means that the European Union has only one way of justifying it at all, namely Article 100 of the Treaty, and, on the basis of the vote of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the committee therefore recommends that Parliament follow the Council’s lead on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Katiforis presents a report on the role and methods of rating agencies. Also in this case, when I closed my eyes, I saw Mr Katiforis who was running and running and was breathless. ‘Where are you running?’ I asked him. He said ‘I am running so that I arrive to present my report before the collapse of Parmalat in Italy. Fatuzzo, you know Mr Mennea. Tell him to get the rating report because he will certainly run faster than me, being a Moscow Olympic runner, and he will, therefore, get to present it and get it adopted before Parmalat collapses’. I am sorry to say that this was a dream that has not been realised: Mr Katiforis did not manage to get to present his report and have it adopted before the sad event of the Parmalat Bond collapse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, thank you for your reply. I also very much appreciate your statement on funding a plan to support Colombia, provided that the commitments that were made are met. Unfortunately, according to Human Rights Watch, some high-level military representatives, who are recognisable, whose names are known and who are responsible for military training and have been involved in various massacres, have still not been removed from their posts, while the terrible collusion between the military and paramilitary groups continues. I therefore think what Commissioner Patten said is important: these things must not be allowed to go unpunished and they must not be shrouded in silence. I am also very pleased to learn – and I confess my lack of knowledge on the subject – that there are plans, even important ones, regarding evacuees, humanitarian aid and committees on human rights. I wonder whether, in view of the peace talks, the Commission can massively increase the aid given to social movements in Colombia and to associations for human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of our Group I should like to warmly welcome Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s excellent report. As she said in her introduction, she has made the very wise decision to focus on what are the most critical issues for the creation of the single market. I want to focus on a couple of the principal points that she makes. The first one is the need to address, within the Union, the impact of legislation on business. It is particularly important that we ask the Commission to reinforce its activities, to ensure proper compliance cost assessment and to assess the costs on businesses of the new legislation. I say to the Commissioner that we do not expect this to be done as an after-thought, after all the departments in the Commission have developed legislation. It needs to be an integral part of the policy and regulation process. He must make sure that from now on that a central objective is to help the internal market to move forward. We were delighted to see a second point on the agenda at Lisbon. Our committee and, indeed, our Group has been emphasising, since this new Parliament started last year, the need to encourage the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises across the European Union. Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s report emphasises a number of key points such as the need to make business formation cheaper and quicker and the need to remove some of the barriers preventing entrepreneurs from benefiting from the risks of putting capital into starting up new businesses. I am disappointed to see that our Socialist colleagues are proposing that clause should be taken out of this resolution. I can assure them that we will vigorously oppose that tomorrow. I invite colleagues to reject that proposal. I conclude by confirming that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market will continue to press vigorously for the speedy completion of the internal market. I give credit to all our colleagues, across all political groups, for the speed with which we have dealt with the electronic commerce directive this week. I hope that is appreciated. I hope it will demonstrate that we are prepared to work with speed. I hope that, together, we can really make the internal market work as quickly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the regulation currently under debate is an extremely important regulation which is urgently needed. I also believe that Mr Nobilia – whom I congratulate – has done an efficient job, as Mr Bowis, who spoke before me, has said, displaying great sensitivity, and that the result is positive for all the parties concerned. I believe that it is extremely important that we realise – and of this I am absolutely convinced – that much more still remains to be done on environmental issues. I know that the European Union is the driving force in this matter, although phosphates, for example, have already been banned in a number of countries for some time. Italy is one of these countries, and while I was a member of the Italian parliament, when I was actually on the committee responsible, I helped to draw up legislative texts to that effect. I believe that the other countries, who have not yet adopted legislation to this effect, should align themselves as fast as possible, not just in order to employ and display greater sensitivity but so as to ensure that there is greater focus on environmental requirements and, moreover, to provide the consumer with more information. I do not agree with some of the objections raised in the House, including those raised by a Member from the Green Group, which, as usual, whenever it is not the instigator of proposals, sees only the negative points – a half-empty glass, so to speak – and not the positive points. I, however, feel that this regulation contains ever so many positive points, indeed where all parties are concerned, and, in my opinion, the question of toxicity tests is already addressed in the directive on hazardous substances, and so it is not necessary for those provisions to be duplicated in the regulation. I would now like to turn to a question that has recently been raised by a number of experts and scientists: the increase of hormonal substances in our waters and the significant effects on the aquatic fauna, with fish changing sex and finding it difficult to reproduce. I believe this is a matter which warrants more attention in the future. Lastly, I feel that knowledge in a range of areas is necessary in order to be qualified to give an opinion on these matters. Just knowing how to use the washing machine is not enough. They affect all consumers, and, even though this regulation is somewhat technical in nature, it ultimately concerns all consumers, in other words all the people of Europe. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
I do not consider that the Council tried to answer my question. I did not ask what the Council thought of the proposal which the Commission has still not tabled. Instead, my question concerns the interpretation in principle of Article 255 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Does this permit legislation also to be passed concerning national laws on transparency and not only in connection with the three institutions of the European Union referred to there? I should like to have an answer to that question. Does the Council consider that, on the basis of Article 255 of the Treaty, national legislation on transparency can be regulated, that is to say legislation not relating to the EU’s institutions?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Mr Poettering has often spoken out, in this very House, against personal attacks on other Members of Parliament. I have always respected him for this attitude, in spite of our conflicting political beliefs. Yet, in the speech he made earlier against the Socialist Group, he insulted a member of my group, Armando Cossuta. I think that it would do credit to him if he refrained from making such unwise comments in the future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I wonder whether we can sanction a resolution regarding the Nice Summit at all? I fear that we may have a situation on our hands which is not dissimilar from the American re-count. Having read what was in the papers this morning in my country, I have to say that not only was the French Presidency mistaken about Poland’s and Spain’s vote weighting, for which the President has, in fact, offered his apologies, but problems have emerged which are both numerous and embarrassing. I quote: annex 3 of the draft treaty stipulates that the majority threshold, which rises as and when new Member States accede, should constitute 73.4% of the votes once all Member States have joined. That translates, therefore, into 253 votes in the Council of Ministers. However, that also means that the blocking minority – and that is, after all, what this is all about, that is what the Nice Agreement was about – amounts to 93. But only one sentence down from this, the number of votes are 91! You do realise that it is difficult for us to discuss a treaty if it contains mistakes such as these.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wanted to ask the Commissioner whether it is true that soldiers of the NATO armed forces now stationed in that region undergo special controls against nuclear radiation and that the same measures are not applied to civilians living in the area?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Amina Lawal, an illiterate 31-year old Nigerian woman, is preparing to face death for the crime of adultery. She claims she was raped by a friend and subsequently she bore a child. The sentence of death by stoning, which is carried out by burying her alive up to her neck and then inviting onlookers to stone her, was delayed until after the birth of her child. There are claims by locals that members of the local Sharia Court which tried her, have themselves had adulterous relationships which on occasions have resulted in the birth of children. Sharia has recently been introduced in parts of Nigeria as part of a process of Islamicisation. Christian groups have been critical of the Nigerian Government's failure to affirm that such punishments are contrary to the federal constitution, although President Obasanjo has said that he will weep if the verdict is carried out. The sentence has been delayed until 2004 to allow her to wean her child. Nigeria will unquestionably be in my opinion in violation of a number of international treaty obligations including the Convention against Torture and the UN Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a signatory. Even in Iran, there has been no stoning for almost two years now, with the most senior judge recently declaring the punishment illegal. This is not about the death penalty per se, which remains legal in international law for the most serious crimes. It is about a disproportionate and gratuitously cruel punishment against a young mother. It is not a feminist issue either. Nigeria must understand that its relationship with the civilised world will not remain the same if the sentence is carried out and I for one will advocate expulsion from the Commonwealth and an immediate programme of selective sanctions and travel bans on Nigeria's leaders. I would also call on the Greek presidency of the Council to summon the Nigerian Ambassador and make plain to him the feelings we hold so strongly in this House against such an unjust punishment. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, representatives of the Council and the Commission, in common with many others, I wish to thank the Greek Presidency for fulfilling its responsibilities so well during a difficult period. For me, the high point of this Presidency was the signing of the accession treaties on 16 April. It is an historic event, meaning that our divided Europe has come to an end. The future entails not only a more peaceful Europe but also a more democratic one. I must just say a few words about the Lisbon strategy. A great deal has been done during the Greek Presidency, for example on coordinating the economic and employment guidelines and the social process, something that I applaud. You also listened constructively to Parliament’s points of view on the employment guidelines. In particular, you took account of what Parliament had to say on the matters relating to equality between men and women. I also want to commend you for the pensions strategy put forward during your Presidency, which I believe strikes a sound balance between economic and social aspects. That is important now that we have to review our pensions systems throughout Europe. I regret the handling of one issue, namely sustainable development. Sustainable development is as yet still only a matter of words, and we have not done very much to give more specific content to sustainable development, for example in the form of indicators. I also regret that we did not succeed in reaching an agreement on the matter of staffing companies. When it comes to the Convention, I agree with what many others have already said, namely that it has been a success, partly due to its content and partly due to the way in which the work has been done. As Mrs Berès said, this must now be followed up at the Intergovernmental Conference too, and Parliament must be involved in the ongoing handling of the issue so that the transparency that has now been achieved can be maintained. When, finally, it comes to asylum and refugee policy, I welcome the fact that the proposal for protection zones was removed. At the same time, I regret, however, that we have still not obtained a common asylum and refugee policy with common minimum rules. In the future, we need a common asylum and refugee policy based upon generosity and humanity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a number of colleagues have said as regards consumer credit, good regulation will stimulate the market, encourage consumer confidence and stimulate innovation and development across the single market. The Commission's original proposal failed to do almost all these things, and Mr Wuermeling's report, which we warmly welcome, is a significant step in the right direction and a substantial improvement. However, as a number of colleagues have said, consumer rights have to have proper enforcement mechanisms. The other two proposals being discussed tonight have that link in common. We warmly welcome Mrs Gebhardt's to achieve a compromise, which we will support because it is very important. We have also made substantial progress in developing a workable proposal on the issue of unfair commercial practices, where enforcement is the key. There is no point in having new rights for consumers unless they can be enforced. Companies need to know where they stand in relation to their national legislation and they also need to be encouraged to adopt best practice through codes of conduct. We have moved substantially in that direction. The important proposal of mutual recognition is also absolutely essential to making everything work successfully. In conclusion, this package is good for consumers and the internal market, and we will strongly support all three proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to quote a few words by Arturo Campión to the President-in-Office of the Council. Arturo Campión, a great Navarran thinker, used to say that there are French Basques who are not Spanish, but who are Basque, and Spanish Basques who are not French, but who are Basque: both are Basques and Europeans. How can we say that a Basque problem is not a European problem?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Are you under the impression that the Member States now have the means to achieve the objectives? I tend to feel that we need to put a lot more Community power behind the fight against fraud, and I think that the coordination between the Member States has failed to come up with the goods so far. Will the new measures do the trick?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, today, those in favour of Europe's enlargement and deepening have, or at least should have, one concern in common: how can the enlarged Europe be prevented from getting stuck; how can we prevent it from becoming a quagmire of indecision? Europe has always been a source of hope for its citizens; even the governments, regularly failing to solve problems, point to Europe as the place where solutions can be found. Today, however, Europe instils fear in people. Unemployment is rising and people fear that this will get worse after the enlargement. The Member States, whether they are large or small, cannot handle this problem on their own. Decisions need to be taken at European level in order to promote real economic recovery and a real increase in the level of employment. At the same time, the Member States must in that way provide an efficient answer to globalisation. That is why it is their plain and simple duty to ensure that a constitution is adopted. It is not difficult to explain to 14-year olds or 70-year-old pensioners that we need a constitution, so why is it so difficult for our Heads of Government to brace themselves to put this constitution into practice?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to extend my sympathies to all of the regions in the south of Europe that have been devastated by terrible fires. This is a true human, environmental and economic tragedy. As you said, Commissioner, repairing the damage is more expensive than preventing it: we therefore need to give prevention the consideration and funding that it deserves. In this respect, I can report that creating networks in the forests of Aquitaine by building tracks, firebreaks and ditches, by increasing the number of water supply points and by appointing fire spotters has made it possible to limit the spread of nascent fires very considerably. These preventive measures were funded in particular by a European regulation dedicated to protecting forests against fire, Regulation 2158/92/EEC, which unfortunately expired at the end of 2002. In spite of the indisputable beneficial effects of this regulation, the Commission – as many of us have pointed out – has transferred only the fire surveillance aspect to its 'Forest Focus' proposal. As for the prevention part, it has been incorporated into rural development, where funding is a great deal more uncertain. This shows the Commission's intention to abandon wholesale a European policy of defending forests against fire and to renationalise this policy. To do so is, I believe, a political, economic and environmental mistake. Well before the terrible fires of this summer – note, well before – and more specifically on 29 April, I wrote to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, to tell him how astonished I was by the Commission's position. At first reading, the Commission had in fact spoken in favour of rejecting Parliament's amendments integrating fire prevention in 'Forest Focus'. In response, all I received was a reassertion of this position, which I regard at the very least as surprising. At a time when the European Parliament is preparing to reopen discussions on the 'Forest Focus' proposal at its second reading, we need to do all we can to include fire-prevention measures in 'Forest Focus'. When it comes to the Community budget, this funding is a drop in the ocean, but, Commissioner, it is a drop of water that will enable many fires to be extinguished.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, cadmium is extremely toxic. In the water framework directive, we, that is the Council, Parliament and Commission, have decided to impose a gradual ban on cadmium. Why do we not do the same here? The Commission has proposed a closed-loop system, but the rapporteur has already pointed out that only 80% is being recovered, which means that 20% must be disappearing into the environment. The Commission proposal is flawed in another way, namely the extraction of cadmium – a tiny amount of it – from the waste stream, which is huge; that is an extremely inefficient way of working, and so it is better to work on a ban and introduce a few derogations later. Lithium-ion and nickel-hydride batteries are already on the market. In future, fuel cells will become available too. The alternative is thus in place. What is more, the market share of the alternative is already growing. That is why it is very regrettable that the Commission has succumbed to the pressure from part of the industry. European politics should reward the pioneers in industry and not those lagging behind, as the Commission is doing. Unfortunately, rewarding those lagging behind is exactly what the and the Commission are doing. I hope that the majority in this House will know better.

Political group: Verts-ALE