GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, reducing the administrative obstacles to the freedom of movement of vehicles and persons and defining a direct link between the current annual circulation tax applied to light passenger vehicles and a vehicle’s environmental impact are only two of the concerns expressed by Europe’s citizens and are concerns to which the Commission wishes to respond positively. The passenger vehicle market in the European Union today is fragmented into fifteen completely different national segments, which creates distortions and penalties that affect not only the citizens but also the automobile industry itself. The real reason for this situation, however, lies mainly in the unequal tax policies applied in each of the Union’s Member States. It will not be easy to harmonise these policies completely in the next few years not that this is the issue today partly because we know that some States that tax vehicles are concerned not so much about the harmful environmental effects of these vehicles as about the volume of tax revenues that they can channel towards their budgets. Furthermore, it is worth emphasising that this report is important and useful and that its proposals and recommendations are balanced and broadly correct. It could have gone further in its proposals for an annual reform of the circulation tax, linking these to a more rapid abolition of the registration tax. The issue is not, however, to totally eliminate competition in the field of vehicle taxation between Member States: the issue at stake is the need to promote the rapid completion of the single market for cars with all the benefits that this entails for the citizens and businesses and for improving the functioning of the internal market. The solutions proposed in this report focus largely on achieving this aim, although they give priority, by repeating them, to the concerns that this Parliament has expressed on several occasions; such as concern at the emission of particulates that are harmful to the environment. Harmonising vehicle taxation is a complex issue that cannot be solved in isolation from other, extremely varied political considerations. This Community initiative and the support it gives Parliament, following the approval of the new regulation on automobile distribution despite the fact that this regulation has proved to be ineffective in harmonising basic car prices represents a pivotal moment in the development of this process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, the shipwreck of the Prestige has demonstrated the powerlessness of the European authorities and the various Member States when faced with a disastrous situation like this one which, although the coasts it has ravaged belong to Galicia, is nevertheless a European disaster and is felt to be so by all European citizens. It is precisely the European public, shocked at this appalling event, and the upset and fury of all those affected – particularly the wonderful Galician coastline and its communities – that are demanding that such a situation must not be allowed to happen again on our common coastline. It is the citizens that are hoping that Galicia will be given appropriate assistance by the EU. A committee of inquiry is required, in order to shed light on all the circumstances of the disaster and to determine responsibility so that we can learn lessons for the future. Europe’s citizens are demanding that legislation be made tougher, and that it enter into force and be implemented earlier than planned, without further ado. Protecting Europe’s maritime industry must increasingly be a common concern and therefore a common policy. Protecting the marine environment and the European coast are now major challenges for us all. If the tragedy of the Prestige serves to raise political consciousness and to stimulate action, the despair and the fury of the Galician people – and ours too – will not have been in vain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, let there be no misunderstanding: the liberal group will be voting for the disclosure Regulation. If we compare the present situation with that of a year ago, we are definitely making progress. Last year, the European Commission had tabled a weak proposal, taking existing practice as a point of departure. That was not acceptable to us. Last summer, we also witnessed Mr Solana’s coup d’état, who, in one fell swoop, declared all documents under his remit to be secret. It is certainly thanks to Parliament’s persistent pressurising that there is now a better proposal before us, and I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs warmly on this. I am all the more pleased, because the liberal group has been closely involved in the negotiation process: firstly by tabling a number of amendments, also in the later stages, in order to keep the pressure on; secondly by supplying no less than three draftsmen of opinions and thirdly, as already mentioned, by the commitment of the liberal Committee Chairman, Mr Watson, in the final and deciding stage. Mr President, we will be voting for the Regulation, but I will not make a song and dance about it. It is a fact that the compromise proposal still contains weak areas, such as the grounds for exception, the documents of third parties in Article 4, the secret documents of Article 9, and I could mention a few more, but the improvements definitely outweigh the weaknesses. The proposal’s mainstay is disclosure, barring exceptions, and that is a huge step forward for the Brussels bureaucracy. In addition, we can identify a number of liberal touches in the compromise: the agencies in recital 8, the exceptions which do not apply in the event of a predominantly public interest in Article 4, the register of Article 9 and the annual report of each institution, listing refusals in Article 17. All in all, I am keeping it low-key. This is not a story with a happy ending, but we accept the compromise because the best is the enemy of the good. Whoever now votes against, now that a compromise has been reached with the Swedish Presidency, will be wasting an opportunity, for as Mr Van den Berg stated a moment ago, other presidencies will not be prepared to go that far. Mr President, tomorrow’s vote is not the end of the story, it is only the beginning. The European Commission’s evaluation in January 2004 will certainly need to lead to adjustments. The Group will make every effort to expose the weaknesses in the Regulation in the mean time, and to contribute to the improvement thereof. And our motto is: “Secrecy shows up the weakness of bad government, disclosure reveals the strength of sound government”.

Political group: ELDR
Chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, the House kindly agreed on 16 November to a request from the committee which I have the honour to chair to delay the final vote on Mr Cashman's proposed legislative resolution. That delay was intended to allow time for the other institutions to consider our amendments and for the Commission to formulate amended proposals. Since our November part-session, we have had contacts with the other institutions, though as yet no agreement has been forthcoming. Therefore, we would ask the House for a prorogation of the delay of a maximum of two months in order to conclude the dialogue and, we hope, present to you compromise amendments for voting at our part-session on 28 February. (Parliament approved the request)(1)

Political group: ELDR
I would like to thank President Prodi for his powerful speech. It reflected a great vision shared by many of us. I also support what he said regarding the innovative value of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which enshrines the indivisibility of fundamental rights, overcoming the traditional distinctions between civil rights, economic and social rights and rights in new areas, and affirms the equality of men and women in all fields of human activity. However, today, the Charter is essentially a symbol, the symbol of the passage from the Europe of the single market to the political Europe, from the Europe of States to the Europe of the citizens. Made up of different peoples and nations which wish to retain their different traditions, languages and religions, the European Union’s identity is based not on belonging to the same ethnic group, the same land or the same race, but on shared principles and shared fundamental human rights. This is the model of European civilisation which, after centuries of bloody conflict, has guaranteed us lasting peace between our peoples, and it is this peace and this social model which is our gift to the candidate countries, whom we do not ask to share our traditions or beliefs but to accept the same rules as we do in order to safeguard the freedom and dignity of every human being. The unprecedented method – as it has rightly been described – followed in drawing up the Charter produced rapid results, thanks to the participation of the representatives of the peoples and their governments, the involvement and achievement of consensus among all the elements of civil society which wished to express their opinions, the transparency and collegial nature of the proceedings, the willingness to listen to different positions and the acceptance of sound compromises. The debilitating semi-secret or confidential negotiations which characterise the intergovernmental method do not produce the same results. Now, this symbolic document is a milestone in the process of constitutionalising the European Union – for, in my opinion, the Union’s Constitution will not come into being in a single document all in one go, but will be the result of the gradual consolidation of the common institutions and the definition of shared fundamental rules – and it must become practically enforceable law. Thanks to the Treaties, the Union has become an area of freedom, security and justice. This cannot continue to exist without an obligation to respect clearly proclaimed fundamental rights. It is the responsibility of the States, who are guardians of the Treaties, to establish this constraint by conferring legal status upon the Charter in the most appropriate way. The Charter is the soul of the Union and it cannot remain suspended in limbo indefinitely: it must be incorporated into current legislation. The governments must take human rights seriously and enforce them firmly and effectively to the tangible benefit of the European citizens. Only then will the citizens begin to look upon Europe as their common home. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as the rapporteur I thank both the President-in-Office of the Council and the Commissioner for their kind words, but I did ask a concise question in my previous turn. It was asking for someone to explain to us rationally, if not in a Cartesian manner, the difference between an annual revision of the financial perspective and the use of the flexibility instrument. I would like to have an explanation. If not, I will have to interpret that silence is the response.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Amendment No 55, rather than being an oral amendment, in fact adds text that must have been forgotten, since this text does not appear. Therefore, the following words should be added to the end of the text of Amendment No 55: ‘will have to give the name of these insurance companies’.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the WTO is the main imperialist mechanism which imposes the terms of the multinationals and the full liberalisation and opening of the markets on international trade. The result is the widening of the gap between rich and poor, despite the growth in international trade. The failure of Cancún demonstrates that the WTO cannot play this role unimpeded, which is, without doubt, a good thing. Resistance is growing both on the streets and in the negotiating chambers. New players are appearing and claiming a place in the game. Intra-capitalist oppositions are becoming more acute. The solution does not lie in reforms in one direction or another, it needs to get to the very foundations of the WTO. The European Union went to Cancún having sacrificed the interests of small and medium-sized farmers. It is clear from the interview with Mr Lamy that he intends to sacrifice even more and I am waiting for an answer to the question of how far he will go. With cotton, for example, where the European Union imports 70% of its requirements, will we reach the point at which we import 100% and wipe out the cotton industry in Greece, Spain and Portugal?

Political group: GUE-NGL
With the consumption of energy increasing and the sources and reserves of mineral fuels decreasing, the energy supply issue is a very important aspect of the internal and external policy of the EU and the Member States. The Chichester report may highlight the need to save energy, improve energy efficiency and develop more efficient transmission systems, but it places its hopes for resolving the problem in the liberalisation of the market and competition, on the one hand, and in controlling supplier countries, on the other. This approach works to the benefit of more general imperialist interests and to the detriment of the workers and society as a whole, in both supplier and consumer countries, which are being sacrificed so that the multinationals which create and exploit recessions and provoke wars which allow them to control the energy-rich areas of the world can make a profit. Energy policies to make use of domestic energy sources obey the same diktat, with adverse repercussions on grass-roots interests, growth and the supply of high-quality, safe and environmentally-friendly energy to the country as a whole. The problem is exacerbated by the liberalisation of the energy market and the privatisation of power stations and transmission grids. We consider that the strategically important energy sector (supply of raw materials, generation, transmission grids) should be in the public sector and should be subject to periodically adjusted national planning which takes account of national requirements and international circumstances. Energy policy should safeguard cheap energy for grass-roots needs, guarantee the safety of workers and citizens and ensure that the environment is protected. These should be primary objectives and should take precedence over any economic factors. Transport policy needs to be revised so that greater use is made of public transport, renewable sources of energy need to be supported and encouraged and research is needed into the most efficient generating systems and the cheapest, least-polluting consumption systems. The EU and the Member States need to respond to the need to protect the environment and to fail to reduce emissions to Kyoto levels is to practise wicked works. Major climate problems, the hole in the ozone layer and so on must not be resolved at the expense of growth in the poorest countries, at the expense of the workers or by fatalistically accepting the destruction of our planet. Workers in Europe and throughout the world and the 2 billion people with no access to electricity are demanding and fighting for a different energy policy which opposes imperialist interests and preferences and the monopolies which are usurping the energy sector. A policy which respects and protects the environment, a policy which will create the foundations for humane living conditions. This being so, the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece have voted against the Chichester report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as steps are being taken in the Middle East with the road map towards peace, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the welcome steps being made towards the same process in Kashmir and the recent steps taken by the governments of India and Pakistan in this regard. Noting, though, the visit of Richard Armitage, the US Deputy Secretary of State, to that area, I would like to call on you to urge the institutions of the Union to become involved in this process too, just as we are in the Middle East through the quartet - perhaps we can invent something of a similar kind for Kashmir. Above all, the Kashmiri people should be involved in this process. Lastly I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this issue was addressed in the Conference of Presidents a few months ago when, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, it was suggested that an ad hoc delegation should go to Afghanistan. That suggestion was approved, but no delegation was approved for Kashmir. Could I ask you please to put that back on the agenda of the Conference of Presidents this week, so that we can take a decision and also have an ad hoc delegation to Kashmir.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank all those who have spoken on my report. I should just like to clear up a few misunderstandings. Firstly, nowhere does this report say that fighting racism means you should have no immigration controls. It says that such controls should not be racially discriminatory and should avoid fuelling xenophobic attitudes or hostility to ethnic minorities. The references to enhanced rights for third country nationals means, of course, rights for those who are legally resident. Secondly, on religion and identity, there is an assertion that there is no exclusivity. I agree with Mr Schulz. Christianity has been an important contributor to European values but it does not hold a monopoly on them. Thirdly, reference has been made to quotas. Nowhere in this report are quotas mentioned. As a liberal I am opposed to quotas. Fourthly, on Austria, the assertion is made that we should not mention Austria because of the time-frame of the report. This report is the annual debate on racism in the year 2000. It refers to where we are now. I welcome the remarks of Mr Oostlander, and I welcome his support for the report. As a gesture of goodwill I will be accepting five small amendments from the EPP, though incidentally none of those mentioned by Mr Evans. I very much hope that more members of the EPP/ED Group will support this report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I see from my order paper that the vote on the situation in Iraq has been withdrawn. Can I be told at whose request, and what reasons were given for withdrawing that?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since we are holding a free debate, I read Mr Ecevit’s statement following Turkey’s acceptance as a candidate country of the European Union in this morning’s Libération. In it he said, “the borders of Europe will inevitably move more and more eastwards....they will encompass Central Asia and eventually the whole of the Asian continent”. In his second statement, he brought up the Cyprus issue and stressed that Turkey would not brook any discussion of the current state of affairs in Cyprus, thereby ignoring what was said in the Helsinki decision. I should like to ask the Commissioner, given that the Commission enthusiastically supported candidate status for Turkey, if these statements are in keeping with the spirit in which the Council and the Commission recommended that Turkey be granted candidate status and if this is an indication of how Turkey will conduct itself in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, firstly let me thank Mr Prodi for this initiative today. Even if the tone of the communications today is rather low-key, they represent the crossing of a major institutional threshold. They are a signal of the new era of which you speak and I wish to welcome that on behalf of my group. Can I ask Mr Prodi whether in principle, subject to Parliament and the Commission being able to formalise appropriate arrangements, it would be possible to do this regularly? Next week, if I understand correctly, you will also be available to discuss the enlargement questions, but as a general principle what you have started here today is important and the opportunity to continue this dialogue between our two institutions by appropriate and formalised mechanisms would be appreciated, either through you personally or through other members of the College of Commissioners as appropriate in other part-session weeks, depending on the agenda.

Political group: ELDR
I congratulate the rapporteur on the quality of her work on the European Commission’s report on the implementation of the European Year Against Racism (1997). Recent events in Austria demonstrate that it is, alas, still necessary today to combat racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. As the report points out, we really must express “horror at the entry into Government in Austria of Jörg Haider’s Freedom Party”. Let me take this opportunity to repeat that we must keep up the pressure on the Austrian Government and continue to encourage public debate. For there is indeed a strong risk that people will simply become used to the situation. I repeat: the great risk is that it will become part of everyday life. This open breach of the founding principle of our European Union, namely unconditional respect for fundamental rights, must not create a precedent. Throughout Europe, extreme right-wing parties are hoping to exploit the entry into power of this coalition with its fascist connotations. So it is our duty as European democrats to remain vigilant, to tempt this government into a foolish mistake that will lead to its fall. I personally am prepared to take this fight to the bitter end. Like the rapporteur, I believe that the ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is a source of vitality and that it is essential for Europe’s future economic prosperity and social success. That is why the public authorities of the Member States and the EU institutions must actively promote racial equality and take concrete action to achieve greater ethnic diversity among their staff. I also agree that leading the fight against racism and xenophobia and the promotion of equal opportunities should be an explicit responsibility allocated to one European Commissioner. One other proposal deserves our full attention. The report urges the Member State authorities to include, as formal requirements of school curricula and teacher training programmes, the teaching of Europe and its role in the world, including slavery and colonialism, and the history and culture of minority communities, the dangers of racism, xenophobia and intolerance, including the Holocaust and antisemitism, and the imperative of racial tolerance and the value of diversity. Coming back to Austria, one reason why it has come to this extreme situation is perhaps that this country does not have a sufficiently objective memory of the past. Let me conclude by asking for consideration to be given, in the framework of the IGC, to possibly amending the Treaty of Amsterdam, specifically its Article 7 which concerns action against any Member State guilty of a “serious and persistent breach” of fundamental freedoms and rights.

Political group: PSE