GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the intention behind the draft directive on stock exchange transparency is to improve protection for investors, to foster greater confidence among them and to cut capital expenditure. It is also meant to promote investment in Europe’s financial markets. I support it insofar as it aims to do these things, but it has been necessary, on a number of occasions, to adjust its course. Most of my amendments were accepted, and Mr Skinner was amenable to compromise, so we were able to improve the Commission draft at crucial points. One of them, to take an example, was Article 6, which dealt with quarterly reports. If they are to function properly, financial markets need reliable information on companies, but what investors value is the quality of the information rather than the frequency with which it is supplied. Neither in terms of costs nor of resources are small- and medium-sized enterprises able to cope with quarterly reporting. I am pleased to say that we have together been able to delete Article 6. A second example is the medium whereby issuers disseminate information. In Article 17, the Commission insisted that company information should be published only on the Internet and that notifications should be sent out only by email. We can see from the example of this House how we are constantly deluged with emails, and the appalling amount of junk data that we have; are investors supposed to work their way through that sort of thing in order to get at the quality information? I think it would be utterly impossible. We have improved matters by including print media, which are the form of publication used by companies quoted on stock exchanges. Not only have we been able to ensure the inclusion of such print media in Article 17, but we have also succeeded in deleting the clause that imposed exclusive use of the Internet. I am glad that we have been able to do this. Mr Skinner’s report is a balanced one and we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs quite rightly adopted it by a large majority. I have advised my group, that of the European People’s Party , to give it overall support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Treaty of Nice is dead and must not be given the kiss of life. To do so would be to show contempt for the voice of the people, not just in Ireland, but throughout Europe. The rejection of the Treaty of Nice by the Irish people is not a rejection of enlargement. No one campaigned against enlargement on the 'no' side. We want to show solidarity with the people of Eastern Europe and to give them the cohesion funds and agricultural funds that we ourselves received. What people were asked to decide on in Nice are new ways of running the EU, which are unacceptable. I should like to caution and warn EU ministers in Göteborg to consider carefully the effect that a second resounding defeat would have for the Nice proposals. They should think carefully about the effects on their own electorates who are watching with increasing disenchantment the distant and cumbersome European superstructure. The intergovernmental method of negotiating EU treaties where leaders wheel-and-deal behind closed doors on matters of importance for all our citizens has come to an end and is now also dead. A new method has to be found which leads to results that are understood and accepted by all of us, involving national and regional parliaments and, indeed, civil society. The Nice result is not an outburst of Euro-scepticism. It is an indication of a serious rethink about Europe across the continent. I woke up one morning to find that Irish soldiers were being sent to the Rapid Reaction Force. I did not know how that decision was made. None of our citizens knew how that decision was made. We voted 'no' because of those kinds of problems. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, in a resolution, the European Parliament called for a framework directive on the safety of nuclear material and on the security of nuclear power stations. Nuclear safety is a topic of deep concern to us all. The Commission has now drawn up a proposal in the form of a Green Paper. Now it is the Council's turn to do something. There are many different suggestions as to how this directive is to be dealt with in the future. Do you believe that it is still possible to implement this directive before the new Member States join?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioners, congratulations, first, to both members of the Commission. I think you have delivered a very ambitious paper and a good basis for discussion with Parliament. But just think: if all your proposals are accepted, 70-80% of all foods already on the market would have to be labelled. So we could say, in the words of our great pioneering Socialist thinker Mr Bowe, alright, perhaps it would have been a brighter idea to turn the whole thing on its head and only label positively? My congratulations to Mr Bowe on his superb and frank speech. What we are giving consumers to believe, of course, is that, when they finally find something among the rows and rows of labelled products which does not have a GMO label, these remaining products are completely clean. But consumers do not know that and perhaps they should not know that. They will have a hard time of it in any case, because things are about to get worse. One per cent? It might still have something in it. We are already in a Dutch auction: 0.5%, 0.1% for Mrs Gebhardt. Why not 0.01%? Our resident scientist Mr Trakatellis says that, in a few years' time, we shall have proof for everything. In the end we shall reach a point where 99% of all food is labelled. And what is the poor consumer supposed to do? What is the consumer supposed to make of all this? It is a pretty poor show on our part to say to the consumer that this 1% does not need to be labelled, unless the company has acted maliciously and did not label intentionally or cannot submit the evidence. What does the consumer care about that? Does it make it healthier or less healthy for the consumer if the company can or cannot submit the evidence? The whole thing is a farce! It is such a comedy that I really do understand when consumers – and I too am a consumer – wonder what the politicians will dream up next. My dear Commissioners, my confidence in you knows no bounds. The Commission proposed in the White Paper on food safety on 12 January 2000 that it would submit a regulation on labelling GM-free food and that would be a wonderful, rounded addition to your proposal. Luckily the Liberals have included it in a proposed amendment. We in Austria have taken this wonderful Austrian way forward. I am not suggesting that you proceed à l'autrichienne, Commissioner, although you are always more than welcome to come walking in the Austrian mountains with us. But there is still time between now and the second reading to take the proper way forward and include positive labelling. Then, my dear Commissioners, we will be very definitely satisfied with your proposal. I have every confidence in you.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, did the Conference of Presidents take a decision regarding the exclusion of the two Zimbabwean diplomats who are on our banned list? I understand that the Conference of Presidents was to decide whether or not they should be banned from the building. I should like to know what was their decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in the event that the Group and the present a joint motion for a resolution, as I understand it, the other proposals are automatically rejected.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would just like to say that here too the German version is incorrect. We are sticking with the English version, in which the words “his or her” have been added. (The President declared the common position approved as amended) President. – I note, from the Members’ comments, that we must pay particular attention to the consistency between the various language versions. *** Recommendation for second reading of the report (A5-0039/2001) by Mr Miller, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and the Council relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of persons comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC [9012/1/2000 – C5-0456/2000 – 1997/0176(COD)]

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to inform you that a very detailed debate took place on Mr Schleicher's report in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Mr Dupuis is, of course, free to think that the matter was not analysed sufficiently: that is his personal opinion and the opinion of other colleagues who represent a minority of the committee. When Mr Dupuis requested that the vote be referred to committee because the translations of the amendments were not available in all the languages, we granted his request. We have therefore acted totally conscientiously. If Mr Dupuis wishes to consider himself to be the self-appointed representative of the Court of Auditors to our committee, with a strange mixture of institutional responsibilities, then that is up to him. In any case, in view of the vote, which was obtained by majority despite the presence of only a small minority of the Members of this House, I will convene an extraordinary meeting of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs without delay, so that a well-researched, clear decision can then be taken in plenary. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I still have three concrete questions which puzzle me concerning this troublesome issue of the recruitment agency of the EU. First: What was the point of solemnly proclaiming the Charter of Fundamental Rights, should the Council be unwilling to implement it? Second: What sort of message does he think this sends to the citizen of the existing Union and also of the applicant countries? Third: When does he expect the matter to be finally and satisfactorily resolved?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we are appalled at the present situation in Sierra Leone. There is a dangerous trend towards the escalation of armed conflict, especially as the United Kingdom has now become militarily involved outside international law and the United Nations. We demand an end to this military escalation and the immediate resumption of negotiations. One-sided recriminations are neither appropriate nor helpful in this situation. The RUF is known for its extreme brutality, but we should not overlook the fact that the government and the militias associated with it are little better. We demand that the sources of the conflict should finally be tackled, by which we mean stopping the arms trade, halting the RUF’s diamond trade via Liberia and Burkina Faso, and ending the interference of states that want to secure national objectives in Sierra Leone under the guise of humanitarian action. I have the feeling that, economically speaking, the United Kingdom is acting in a neo-colonial way and that in political and military terms it is now acting like a colonial power. It is very easy to get drawn into a war, but it becomes almost impossible to avoid the next logical step, military intervention, once the atmosphere escalates. The military imposition of peace by international troops working with government militias against the RUF will not bring peace at all. Quite the contrary, it brings with it the risk of uncontrollable escalation. It is high time that the causes of this situation were addressed and a political solution was found. Because of this, we need de-escalation in Freetown, not escalation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, some of the previous speakers have pointed out that, without parties, there is no democracy, and to that I have to add that there is no democracy without gender equality. We know that women are still very much under-represented, even though they make up half of Europe’s population. If women are not adequately represented in political life, this also shows how little progress the political parties have made as regards gender equality. The political parties now have the task of making the principle of equality a political reality, and parties funded with European money also have the task of representing the public in an appropriate way. We therefore want the Statute on European political parties to make the allocation of funds conditional upon a balanced male/female ratio. The parity that we are proposing should be an obvious thing, and it is indeed regarded as such in a number of Member States, France being an example. The French National Assembly unanimously adopted a law on parity. We should not merely be paying lip-service by stressing how important equality is. Today, we have again made this clear in the Convention, where equality of treatment has been set down, once and for all, as a fundamental value. Nor must we merely appeal to the business world and demand that it should refrain from discrimination, if we ourselves are not willing to do so. That would lose us our credibility. I therefore appeal to you to adopt our proposals as a matter of urgency. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Absolutely right. Mr Tannock is presenting that amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to take the opportunity presented by this extremely interesting debate on the mountain regions to congratulate Mr Ebner and Mr Radwan on the very impressive and agreeable way in which they have taught us something about the mountain regions this week by arranging this splendid exhibition and celebration here. It has been a great success and I would like to thank them for having presented these wonderful regions in the South Tyrol and Upper Bavaria to us in such an excellent way!

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, President of the Commission, President-in-Office of the Council, I have chosen to speak Swedish today, since it is my country’s second native language. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I really believe that the expectations at the start of the Swedish Presidency are very high following our experiences with the French Presidency. Personally, I am convinced that Sweden will once more confirm the rule that the smaller Member States are often more impartial, something which will favour the common European interest over narrower national interests. This is your first presidency, and your Ambassador – if I may say this in public – has very nicely compared a first presidency with losing one’s virginity. He certainly did not wish to lose it in a violent manner. I can assure you that the European Parliament can make a presidency easier and that you will therefore lose your virginity in a very gentle and amicable way. My Group wants to see progress particularly in the following areas. Sustainable development must become a reality now. It is now or never. The objectives and indicators must be confirmed in Gothenburg in accordance with what you have told us. Civil crisis management is something which can be promoted under a Swedish Presidency. Conflict prevention in all areas of foreign policy is very important to our Group. We welcome your promise of a programme in this area. Something which perhaps does not have as clear an emphasis on the Swedish agenda is a comprehensive reform of the EU’s agricultural policy, based on the fact that our food must be made safe again. The environment must no longer be damaged and animals must no longer be mistreated. I have been following the Swedish debate and learned that you suddenly discovered that you are really a vegetarian, or at least a part-time vegetarian. May I welcome you to the club. It may come as a surprise to yourself and to the citizens of Sweden, but this is one of a number of areas which require more, not less, of a European input. Environmental taxes are an obvious example. Everybody appreciates that the insistence on unanimity needs to be abandoned in this area. As my colleagues have also pointed out, what we need here is a Community method, that is to say strong common institutions – namely the Commission and Parliament – instead of a method of intergovernmental cooperation. To a large extent, the method of intergovernmental cooperation consists of meetings behind closed doors which are outside parliamentary control. This will not lead to the openness you are striving for. I should like to call this a ‘Swedish paradox’. You must realise that, in order to have openness, the method of intergovernmental cooperation needs to be abolished. In the wake of the Nice Summit, it is important that we introduce a comprehensive reform of the EU in which the national parliaments and the European Parliament take an active part. I hope you take up the challenge set out by the President of the Commission. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Wiebenga for his sterling work. I can tell you that it is a very rare occasion indeed when all Dutch groups agree on refugee policy. Although we offer our unqualified support to the report as a whole, my group would now also like to make a few observations, of which I should like to mention two. The first concerns the much-debated Article 13(1). The Commission suggests that Member States which equate unmarried couples with married couples in their national legislation should also do so in the case of family reunification. It is not, therefore, a matter of imposing family law standards, but about equal treatment within a Member State. It is, in my view, a modest proposal, but it touches upon an important principle. I am, therefore, disappointed that this is being played down in the report, more specifically in Amendment No 22, which turns this modest proposal into an empty statement. It now claims that Member States are entitled to reunify unmarried couples. That does not require European agreement, for that is already the case now. The Commission proposal relies on solidarity among Member States and their generosity in offering reception capacity, but there is no big stick. The rapporteur attempts to make the reception scheme less non-committal, and I support him on that, but solidarity is not given any financial leverage. Like the rapporteur and some others here, I am convinced that a sharing of the financial responsibility at European level is necessary to prevent Member States from passing the buck to one another. I also believe that it is unwise to start moving people around unnecessarily. Pursuant to Article 24, the Refugee Fund has to provide for financial solidarity. But this fund has a maximum of EUR 10 million annually at its disposal for displaced persons. That just about covers the cost of two tents and a hot-water bottle. Unless this fund grows substantially, I fear for Europe’s hospitality.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I regret that Mr MacCormick has withdrawn it, but I believe that these two amendments do not deal with the same issue at all. It simply makes a statement which I believe nobody doubts, and that is that regional parliaments also represent the people of the Union. That is all this amendment says. I therefore believe that this is a completely different statement. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0006/2002) by Mr Pohjamo, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the management of regional policy and the Structural Funds [2001/2066(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0007/2002) by Mr Musotto, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Economic and Social Cohesion [COM(2001) 24 – C5-0527/2001 – 2001/2207(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0022/2002) by Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on EU policy towards Mediterranean countries in relation to the promotion of women's rights and equal opportunities in these countries [2001/2129(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0009/2002) by Mrs Hermange, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on illiteracy and social exclusion [2001/2340(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0004/2002) by Mrs Hermange, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda [COM(2001) 104 – C5-0536/2001 – 2001/2215(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the breaking up of the tanker Erika, a package of measures has been devised, under political pressure, with a view to improving the safety of ships at sea. Of course, the key question is will these measures actually lead to sub-standard ships being taken out of service? I am not so sure. Although it pains me to say it, the fact is that we are tinkering about at the edges with these measures, rather than tackling the real root causes of the problems. Mrs Peijs and I have carried out a short investigation, and I would very much like to hear the Commissioner’s response to the following question. Can you tell me what became of the 750 ships that Honduras removed from its register? Were they really taken out of service? And where are they in that case? Secondly, is it true that in Cambodia, ships can be registered within twenty minutes via the Internet? Thirdly, I feel that a tough line must be taken with the classification societies. They are given too much free rein at present. I have tried to incorporate an incentive to take responsibility by raising the limited liability, which involves relatively small sums, but there is often nothing to be gained. But I have opposed the idea of unlimited liability because this impedes the market and is counterproductive. What is the situation with regard to the port state control? Commissioner, the current rules are not being properly adhered to as it is, never mind new ones. The Member States are simply not prepared to release enough money. There is a lot of talk but little action. As I see it, the Council must show greater commitment to making more resources available and exacting better sanctions. Then there is the matter of how to deal with flags of convenience. I have quite a list. I will vote in favour of the rapporteur’s proposal that ships which fly a blacklisted flag for three years in succession should be excluded, thereby sending out a signal to these flag ships that sub-standard controls will not pass muster in Europe. We do not want them in our ports or in our waters. In short, measures are an informal way of trying to bring safety to the desired standard. That is bad for the people, the sea, the environment and for the sector’s image. There should be more cooperation within the sector. I therefore support the initiatives for a European maritime platform.

Political group: ELDR