GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the energy reports up for discussion today must be understood as an integrated whole, which will have an important impact on the viability of the energy market in Europe. The European-wide energy networks will heal the market’s spine and skeleton. The liberalisation package will, moreover, improve the market’s circulation and digestion. Liberalisation must be continued and the network improved. In the first round of enlargement the new Member States must also be involved more fully. We have really had to wrangle with the Council over both issues. With regard to the energy networks, a compromise was eventually reached that will guarantee there is the necessary flexibility to amend Annex III, while at the same time ensuring there is sufficient parliamentary monitoring. Achieving this compromise has not been easy. The liberalisation of the energy markets is not any dramatic breakthrough, at least not from the point of view of the Nordic countries, although it is good that they are indeed being liberalised. This is definitely a step in the right direction. If necessary the Commission will probably make new proposals for further liberalisation of markets. Contrary to what some of our Socialist friends think they know, the free and open markets of the Nordic countries are functioning well. Freedom of choice for the consumer has grown, prices have fallen, services have improved and things run more efficiently. The market mechanisms have been working perfectly. It has to be accepted that prices can sometimes also rise in a free market. Rarely, however, are there situations where the same year sees one of the century’s driest summers together with one of its coldest winters. What is most crucial in the liberalisation of the energy markets is that unhindered access to the networks is guaranteed. Consequently, the clear unbundling of network activity and the fact that the tasks of the regulatory authorities should be sufficiently harmonised are two of the most central elements in this package. Without them we can forget the word ‘competition’ when we talk about the electricity and gas markets. Now is the time to bring the debate on the package to an end: the compromises before us are completely acceptable. The package is an essential, albeit inadequate, condition for a viable market. We are now establishing framework legislation, but its implementation must also be monitored. The Commission must be equipped with the proper tools to monitor the viability of the markets. It will also be crucially important to ensure there is sufficient investment in the future. Finally, thank you again to all those of you who have been involved in working on this package. This has been a long, challenging and arduous process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to express my group’s support for the good work of the Commissioner aimed at providing a satisfactory solution to this conflict which has arisen in Doha in relation to the United States’ position. I would like to point out several inconsistencies: as a doctor and a teacher, I am aware of the range of reports presented each year by the World Health Organisation, which always cite the famous Horowitz vicious circle, according to which illness creates poverty and poverty creates illness. We therefore have to break this vicious circle by helping to eradicate diseases – amongst other things – because the eradication of disease increases economic capacity and that helps to put countries in a position to produce, to have their own industry, and helps to provide access to these medicines for the people who need them. We are therefore talking about a duty in which we have a high degree of responsibility. It is also regrettable – as other speakers have said – that the unilateral position of the United States in this regard is having a bearing on one of the most negative aspects of the process of neoliberal globalisation we are suffering, which consists of increasing inequalities and hindering and weakening the situation of the countries with fewest resources. We therefore have to understand that it is the European Union, which is based on a desire for peace, development and solidarity, which can introduce elements to ensure a rebalance within the context of this neoliberal process of globalisation which is under way in order to provide it with the elements which – as has been said during the previous debate – arose from the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. We therefore believe that the European Union’s efforts to make the World Health Organisation an organisation with the authority to be able to indicate the necessary health situations at any particular time to be appropriate, and we therefore support Mr Lamy’s position.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I just wanted to say that it should be announced that we have got on to Question No 2, as otherwise the Members in the House will not be aware that we have already moved on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the conflict in the Middle East is today sending shock waves through all the countries of the Mediterranean. This subject will certainly be at the centre of the discussions in Valencia. Sympathy for the colonised Palestinian people, which is felt well beyond Arab societies, is increasing in these countries in particular, due to the endless cultural, social and political humiliations and frustrations that the people suffer and for which they hold Arab and Western leaders jointly responsible. That is why the desire for a dignified life where they and the law are respected is leading the people of these countries increasingly to take the dangerous path of anti-Western nationalism, be it Arab or religious. This development, which is heightened by the international community’s inability to put an end to the massacre and restore respect for law in the Middle East, is detrimental to the cultural and civil dialogue called for by the Barcelona Process. It also demonstrates the urgent and important need for this dialogue. In fact, the only thing the Barcelona Process can do – the challenge before it – is to provide the support it has hitherto failed to provide for democratisation in the countries of the Mediterranean. If we do not suspend the Association Agreement with Israel, then not only will the Israeli tanks have crushed the territories, they will have also crushed Article 2 of this Agreement, as well as Article 2 of all the Association Agreements. What would we be able to say in response to the constitutional coup d’état of Ben Ali in Tunisia? How would we be able to respond to the aspirations of Algerian society, which has been taken hostage by two camps that are both enemies of democracy? The notion that economic development necessarily leads to democracy is absolute nonsense. The aim of sustainable development, namely ecological development and development of solidarity, in the Mediterranean, cannot be reduced to the concept of the free-trade area. Do we have any idea as to the consequences for employment, public services, and people’s lives, the consequences of the measures to liberalise this trade? From this perspective, democracy is certainly a condition for development. The requirement for democracy is not only a necessity, which some people describe as neo-colonial, it is, in fact, a fundamental element of the relations that we must establish in this region.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as you will be aware, the relevant Rule states that there will be a debate and vote. I presume there will be a debate as well, as the Rule specifies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we should take the position that we do not expect of developing countries what we are not prepared to do ourselves. We should ensure that where we are protecting services or markets we do not oblige other countries which are less able to do battle in the open market to start up services that will simply sink or become private monopolies owned outside their own state. It seems to me as well that there is an urgent need for this Parliament to be treated as a parliament and for the secrecy in relation to these negotiations to end. If we are trying to create a multinational organisation at European level, which will have public support and legitimacy, then we cannot continue to proceed in ways which exclude the democratically elected representatives from important areas of policy. Finally, the bottom line in terms of protectionism is that we have to protect the rights of citizens, whether they are inside or outside the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, in principle, we transport experts among the also support the Commission proposal on noise charges, as we have to use higher charges for noisy aircraft to give the airlines a practical stimulus to use quieter aircraft, and thereby protect the public from a needlessly high level of perceived noise. Those of us who sit on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are not very happy with the Committee on the Environment, Health and Consumer Policy, as the Environment Committee has simply rejected the proposals that the Transport Committee had adopted by a large majority. The Commission should reconsider how it might reintroduce our proposals, as the Transport Committee's proposals were aimed at giving airports a far more sophisticated framework within which to calculate noise charges. We want to make it clear in law that it is possible to spread the burden more widely and that aircraft are, as an alternative, to be liable to charges either according to certification or in accordance with the noise levels as actually measured. We take the view that what we proposed in the Transport Committee is more environmentally effective, and that it maintains a higher standard. In the EU, we have in fact always acted according to the principle that, where extensive and effective environmental protection systems are already in place and we lay down a minimum standard at European level, the countries and groups with more highly-developed systems do not have to reduce their standards. You, Commissioner, are in a position to set at nought my concern that we might be using European law to lower existing noise standards, and you can do it right now. A broad majority of us in this House has agreed on Amendment No 11, which is to be added to the Blokland Report, by which we seek to make it clear that existing, more effective, noise charge systems may be retained, and thus that European law does not mean a step backwards for the protection of the environment. To that extent, Commissioner, I look forward to your comments on Amendment No 11 with great expectation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there are still too many obstacles in the way of smooth provision of financial services across national boundaries. The draft directive on market abuse that we are discussing today is one step in the right direction. Investor confidence is crucial for the successful development of our financial services markets. The integrity of European markets has to be safeguarded. Common and efficient standards to combat market abuse have to be established and thoroughly implemented. Clearly, actions that intentionally manipulate financial markets, including those by financial journalists, have to be penalised. Like some other colleagues, however, I am worried about some proposals whose basic intention might be good and respectable but whose effects would be devastating. I believe that there must be tough rules in place to prevent conflicts of interest among financial journalists. But these need to be rules that are sensitive to the media context. Free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy. In many countries, for example in my country and in Scandinavia, it would be simply unconstitutional to subject journalists to the sort of heavy-handed regulation that the CESR put forward in July. Under the draft guidelines, a report by a journalist that merely records accurately a recommendation made by an investment analyst – for example, Merrill Lynch has upgraded its rating on Nokia – would require a public disclosure of personal interest on the part of the journalist. This would be impractical, unnecessary and disproportionate. The European Parliament did not address the issues raised by Article 6(5) at first reading because it was widely believed that the Article was targeted at financial analysts employed by investment firms where well-publicised abuses have occurred. The publication by the CESR of its draft guidelines in July revealed that it has another plan. The aim is to cover an extensive range of routine financial journalism where standards have remained high and existing governance mechanisms have proved adequate. As explained above, the recent amendment to Article 6(10) by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is insufficient, as the CESR would still be able to override or amend these mechanisms. The feedback we have had from the European financial journalism community is clear. The proposals would have an adverse impact on media freedom and on journalistic independence. Financial journalism contributes to one of the key objectives of the directive, that is to ensure market transparency. This is especially important for small retail investors. They are the investors in the European Parliament should be trying to protect.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel, for this report, and, incidentally, to the Commission, for the document they have presented us with. In the short time available, I have just two comments to make: I would like to take up what Mr Rübig had to say about youth. People the length and breadth of the country complain that we do not have enough engineers. Young people are no longer going to university to study natural sciences. Where I come from, a survey was carried out in order to ascertain why this should be. This had surprising results. We had always believed that young people are no longer choosing to study the natural sciences or engineering at university because the job prospects are so poor. This is not the case. They do not study physics and chemistry because they are no fun. In a society that prizes having fun so highly, it is evidently extremely important for things to be fun. We are evidently failing to make the material attractive to people and suited to the lifestyles they have these days. They are from a different generation to mine. Therefore, I advocate that we bear this in mind when we find ourselves talking in such scholarly terms about the next generation. The second proposal I would just like to make is as follows: we are discussing the European research area. We are going to enlarge the European Union, marvellous! Indeed all these States are already taking part in the fifth research framework programme at the present time, and they will also participate in the sixth. I would therefore recommend involving the Parliamentarians and Ministers for Research of these countries in the preparation for the sixth research framework programme as well. I would envisage doing this here in the European Parliament – the French expression is assises de recherche – so that we can have a joint discussion about the guidelines for the sixth research framework programme.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to correct a misapprehension: the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market rejected the directive as a whole as early as the first reading, although it is true that Parliament did not go along with it. Following the European Court of Justice ruling the Committee then adopted the opinion again, admittedly this time by a large majority. It is true that the Court's ruling did not, in fact, significantly change the legal position, but it did develop it; some aspects have now been clarified and some points are clearer. In fact, it does not actually have anything to do with tobacco: the European Court of Justice's judgment might just as well have been handed down in relation to an advertising ban on alcohol, for example, or an advertising ban on chocolate, because we know that sugar can also be damaging to human health. In my opinion, the superficial way in which the Commission and the Council of Ministers have examined this Court ruling in their discussions hitherto is shameful. In fact, it would be truer to say that they have not examined it at all; they have completely ignored it, as Commissioner Byrne did just now, and as is also the case, for example, in the statement of reasons for the common position, in which it was not deemed necessary even to correct and make some adjustments to the recitals either. The only laudable exception is Parliament's Legal Service. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into detail here; that is quite impossible. I can only call on colleagues to go along with the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. This is not about the tobacco industry; quite simply it is about upholding the Treaties. Neither is it about legalistic hair-splitting; it is about an eminently political question, which it does not require any legal training to answer. It is simply about respecting areas of competence and safeguarding subsidiarity and also, for example, the rights of colleagues in the national parliaments, who, of course, are entitled to have their own areas of competence. This very issue of delimiting competences was addressed in Nice. But if whenever a material majority is found on a specific issue in the three bodies – the Commission, the Council of Ministers and Parliament – this majority is also observed, then we can do without this ceremony and it would suggest that what really matters are institutional safeguards. I hope and assume – and here I am also placing my trust in the European Court of Justice – that it will continue to hold its previous course, that it will agree to step up its efforts to safeguard competences and that, for this reason, it will once again annul the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am just going to talk about one subject. This is a subject Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already spoken of: the procedure for conflict resolution. When the Uruguay Round ended in Marrakech, the World Trade Organisation brought in a compulsory system of settlement of disputes, but the procedure they used was one inherited from the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This was a procedure led by groups of experts and informal bodies. The result of this is that now, the European Community is handing over to an international organisation its obligation to find a solution to its international disputes with no guarantee that it will be treated with sufficient impartiality. For example, the first dispute about bananas was resolved by a panel, that is a group of experts, presided over by a former American senator, when the plaintiff was the United States of America. And secondly, closer to home, the Commission needs to set its own affairs in order because now, the Commission services responsible for putting its claims to the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation are completely toothless. I would therefore expect from the Commission and from the Member States that in the new draft of the World Trade Organisation text, an independent and impartial system for settling disputes will be established, which will not push us into the path of an oncoming bus as has happened in the past.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the Hughes report and the reasonable balance that he has achieved. It is a tribute to his political skill. Apart from alcohol, I think fatigue is probably the biggest killer on our roads and it is also true to say that if I were employed as a truck driver, I would not want my job undermined by a self-employed driver who would be willing to work 18 hours a day. Nor, if I was a self-employed driver and wanted to strike a fair balance between my working life and my family life, would I want someone undermining my position by being able to work 18 hours a day. It is pointless to argue that a self-employed driver might be less fatigued than an employed driver. From my own personal experience, the reverse is in fact true. A self-employed driver has many more tasks to carry out and is more likely to be fatigued when first taking the wheel, never mind having worked 10 or 12 hours in the day, so I would strongly support this report and welcome the compromises that Stephen Hughes has reached. It is also important to tighten up the definition of 'self-employed'. We have seen too much abuse of this loose definition of 'self-employed' in other areas of work. Our responsibility is to find a balance between the needs of employed and self-employed drivers and the community at large, so as to ensure that the latter can go about its business safely. They look to us to provide and guarantee safety and to ensure that employed and self-employed drivers are protected by the law from being driven into bad health and, perhaps, an early death from overwork.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, with enlargement on the horizon, today’s debate forms an excellent opportunity to reiterate what the representatives of the European people regard as being the key points. I will focus on the area of consumer protection, as I am responsible for this particular section in the report and resolution. When the European Union is enriched with many millions of Central and Eastern European citizens in a few years’ time, these countries will also add as many consumers. Although the acquis communautaire on consumer protection is relatively limited, consumer interests touch upon many other areas of policy. I therefore believe that the ultimate goal we should strive towards with regard to these countries, these new accession countries, is for the consumer to become a fully-fledged partner in the market economy, which will help bring about a sound social mainstream. In order to reach that position, it is necessary for structured consumer organisations to be in place. These consumer organisations should be independent from national governments and should, in my view, be given more encouragement by the EU, but also by Member States and other NGOs. There are three other areas which I would like to outline briefly. First of all, the area of telecommunications. Telecommunications and technological developments only surpassed by time itself should not be kept from the consumers of the enlargement countries. They should not lag behind. So I would call for a concerted effort in that field. In fact, the same applies to the financial sector. In conjunction with industry, we should make extra efforts to set a sound form of organisation in motion. Mr Bowis echoed this very sentiment a moment ago: food aid and food safety are top priorities, not only for the public, but also because the internal market will soon need to take these products into consideration. European unification has a great deal of potential with many opportunities which we must seize with both hands.

Political group: PPE-DE