GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner Bolkestein, it is not the first time that I have pointed out in plenary that my group shares your opinion, that is that we are particularly disappointed by the vote which took place in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which in my view was a reactionary vote. Before I presented my comments I re-read the Commission proposal, the document of 24 July, and, both personally and on behalf of my group, I find the proposal made by your services to be of a very high quality, because it gives a very positive diagnosis and clearly explains the impact that we can expect from this proposal. I would like to once again stress to my fellow Members that the Commission made an extremely progressive proposal, which can be expected to have an impact in 2010-2012 for the candidate countries. It begins with an extremely weak central rate, which is the simple indexation of the rate that was in force as early as 1992 and, it is true, this means that some States will have to raise these rates. I also think that the comment from fellow Members, to the effect that an overall package should be proposed, is nothing more than a ploy to sidestep the issue; in other words, agreement will not be reached on the entirety of the measures proposed. I would also like to say – and in my view this is one of the reasons why this proposal was rejected by the main political groups – that you are obviously stressing the issue of distortion of competition but, if you carefully read the Commission proposal, you will clearly see that it seeks not, for example, to increase the overall tax burden of the States, it involves reorganising the national tax systems. For example, one proposal, which we support, is to reduce taxes on transport infrastructure and instead, to favour taxation according to use, which is the same index as that of the ‘polluter-pays’. It is clear that States do not want interference in the tax systems, but they are wrong. I would also like to say that, as regards the plan for sustainable development, the Commission paper stresses, according to the European Environment Agency that the external cost of transport represents 8% of GNP. I think that the Commission is right to stress that if the Council wants to respect the objectives, in particular regarding reducing pollutant emissions for private cars, then it must follow your proposals. Mr Bolkestein, you have the full support of my group, but I know that this will be insufficient. Nevertheless, we continue to battle on together; we will get there one day.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the fact of the matter is that, even in the air transport industry, the law of the jungle and the savage neo-liberal policy which applies are such that mergers have taken place and national airlines which enjoyed periods of strong growth in the past have gone bankrupt, a blatant example being the bankruptcy of Swissair and Sabena. And no doubt others will follow. In the medium term at least, two or three large airlines will survive in Europe to share the pickings with the American behemoths which, with the connivance of our governments, have taken pains to penetrate and take over the European market. The terrorist attacks on 11 September have intensified the crisis and been used as an excuse for cutbacks and mass redundancies. And in what is already a dismal situation for many national carriers, along comes the Commission to administer the coup de grace by prohibiting state aid, at a time when the US government is injecting its behemoths with massive amounts in aid. There can be no doubt that this situation is here to stay and, the more capital is concentrated, the more the workers and consumers will be expected to pick up the tab in the form of job losses and more and more expensive tickets. That is why the only solution is to support the fight to get this policy reversed and get rid of those who apply it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the Commission proposal on chemical policy. It is long overdue. For too long we have seen a gradual increase in allergenic reactions and even worse human health effects and at the same time a series of undesirable effects on the general environment. If we adopt this report, we will be taking a first step towards asking a very important question: whether the 30 000 chemicals in general use today and the 100 000 components that they are used to make are in any way responsible for the things we see happening to human health and the world around us. There is no doubt that we will have to make a very wide-ranging examination of the chemicals in use today and those that we might want to introduce into our environment in the future. We will have to start considering issues and areas that we have not previously considered. Socio-economic issues will be particularly important. The full effects of changing our chemicals policy and strategy will be wide-ranging across the whole of Europe. However, one would hope that, by taking a serious step forward tonight and starting to formulate a new structure for chemicals policy, we will arrive at a policy which is truly sustainable in the long term; which brings genuine and positive benefits to society as a whole; ends any negative impacts upon human health in the environment and stands as a shining example to other parts of the world as to how they should progress in future. So tonight we are taking a step not just towards a cleaner and better European environment and a stronger and more prosperous chemical industry in Europe but also towards a healthier and better future for the whole world.

Political group: PSE
I would like to congratulate Mr Paasilinna for the work he has done on this issue, the particular difficulty of which is shown by the number of amendments that have been tabled by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would reiterate that the proposed directive, due to come into force on 1 January 2003, seeks to take account of the development of the former Telecom Package 1998, on the one hand, and of technological evolution in this market, on the other. I am very pleased to see that the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) are to be given greater flexibility, allowing them to conduct their own assessment of market positions and to decide when and how a given market needs to be regulated. Like Mr Paasilinna, I believe that the new approach will allow the framework directive to play a key role in setting the generally applicable regulations. These regulations must provide consistency throughout the Community. The difficulty in this constantly changing sector is to find a fair balance between specific rules and Community legislation in the area of competition. It is important to ensure that competition is not so anarchic as to harm the interests of the consumer, but that the spirit of innovation is maintained. The NRAs will therefore have a large part to play in achieving this. In our debates, the concept of a ‘Significant Market Player’ emerged as the focus for discussion. It was even thought worthwhile arranging a public hearing on this topic. In the end, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy voted in favour of an amendment to clarify the terminology used. Bearing in mind the stage that we have reached, I believe that it would have been difficult to create a clearer definition. I therefore welcome the fact that this amendment has been adopted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would nevertheless like to remind those Members who have asked for no less than five or six passages of the report to be deleted that we are not in a supermarket with a trolley. This is about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and we are not here to decide what should be retained or completely removed. It also has to do with the Charter that has to appear in Part II of the text of the Constitution. So when Members propose removing the right to education, the right of asylum, the right to citizenship, the reference to racism, when Members call into question equality between men and women or on the basis of sexual orientation, I say to them that the next time we should not call this text the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union but the Charter of Random Rights of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Verhofstadt spoke a lot about the need to improve democratic control. But we do not need to change the Treaties to improve democratic control. We can do that using the existing Treaties. I am not talking about applying Article 42 to bring the third pillar matters into the first pillar, although that would be very desirable. I am talking about instances such as that last week where Parliament was consulted for the fourth time in a year on a text of which half was missing. We were asked to approve a regulation to freeze the assets of a list of terrorist organisations; the list was not attached. The regulation referred to two Council texts, neither of which is available to Parliament. We voted on amendments covering the absent documents in view of the urgency, but if that text is not amended and, in view of this practice, Parliament really should consider recourse to the European Court of Justice unless Council is prepared to treat us in a fairer and more adult way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, further to what a number of Members have already said, I think that it is important to underline that what we are doing today is the start of an important process in which the European Union and the Commission will play an important role in the area of aviation negotiations. This is, in itself, a significant breakthrough which will also mean that the Commission will now have a mandate to enter into negotiations with the USA, for example, on behalf of the whole of the European Union, and that could be extremely beneficial, but only if this mandate is so clear that the European Union can in fact speak and negotiate with one voice. We know from other areas how often this turns out to be extremely difficult to do, particularly when we have to do business with the USA. In the meantime, the Member States must be able to continue to negotiate with bilateral partners, and it is therefore necessary for the internal process in the European Union to be properly organised. That is why the rapporteur’s proposal is in favour of not doing everything at once but concentrating on the United States to begin with, at an initial stage. The experience gained in this way will naturally come in useful at subsequent stages. This will also avoid the confusion that would arise if the Commission suddenly had to accept responsibility for all bilateral matters and negotiations or exercise complete control over these. I support what my colleague Brian Simpson said about this. It is naturally difficult – that is clear from the amendments – to find a good formula for the role of the Commission on the one hand and the role of the Member States on the other, who naturally also have to take the interests of the aviation industry into account in order to achieve a proper balance in that area. I do, however, think that it is important for Parliament and the Member States, but also the airlines, to be able to play a role in this process, but also to be able to exercise their influence in the execution of their new rules. This is a major operation which can create more opportunities for European aviation, but there is also the risk, and I would like to emphasise that, of an outcome that will bring with it undesirable changes and will thus have a deleterious effect on jobs in some countries. I think that this point about jobs and the interests of our own airlines must remain firmly on the agenda in the process.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, the Parmalat collapse and other worrying financial crises before and after it have revealed the limitations of the rules governing our financial markets. As happened in the United States, on the crest of the Enron affair, and in the United Kingdom, with its 34 defaulting scandals, in Italy too we immediately realised the need to introduce strict legislation in order to protect savers more effectively and – in a broader sense – to attempt to limit the discredit that would inevitably affect the financial market involved. In these cases, though, we have to put aside emotional reactions and, in particular, we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by the appearance, however serious, of what has occurred and by the incentives that may result from it. Similarly, I do not support exceptional measures, such as the possibility of a monitoring super-authority, because we would run the risk of creating a new body that would have difficulty in making any additional contribution to an environment that must be restructured. The measures in force have to be well implemented and certainly need to be redesigned. The bankruptcy law could also play a key role: the par condicio creditorum principle and the ‘suspect period’ should also play a role in both extraordinary administration and controlled administration. This would reinforce the protection of creditors. Furthermore, the credit system, which is certainly not entirely blameless in the case of Parmalat, would not be the sole arbiter of events. These would, however, be subject to the assessment of a designated judge. So, to continue on the subject of far-reaching proposals, we would need to increase the information available on all financial products available to the public, both in ex ante prospectuses and in ex post communications, and to eliminate the problem of the patchiness of the information on the different financial products available to the public. Transparency monitoring must be extended to everything, including banking and insurance products offered to savers, which contain a management input. The introduction of stricter areas of incompatibility to protect the independence of inspection bodies will be inevitable. In the case of bond-issuing firms, however, more needs to be done: documents binding on the company will need to be issued, stating what the company will do, when it will do it and what investment products will be used. Above all, though, in addition to accounts auditors, we will need to put in place a figure that has already existed in the United States for ten years: the ethics officer. This figure, who acts as a form of listener, or identifier of signals, must be able to pick up on even weak danger signals that escape the attention of analysts, who focus on evidence. When reading the work of the ethics officer, it is possible to identify not only management results, but – on the outside – the extent of the firm’s reliability.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we feel that the Katiforis report on the proposal for a directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco products is a good compromise on the Commission and Council’s proposal. Indeed, adopting the Commission’s proposal, we would ultimately have made the legislation too inflexible and created great difficulties, particularly for the manufacturing sector, with the result that the cost of national production – especially in southern Europe – would have increased and its quality decreased. There would also be an increase in smuggling, as has already been pointed out. In particular, we feel that the idea of a fixed amount minimum excise tax on cigarettes, as proposed, would not have protected – or rather, would have compromised – equality in the field of competition between very large and small and medium-sized tobacco companies, thus leading to distortion of the principle of competition. In our opinion, Mr Katiforis’ report focuses on three goals. Firstly, the goal of tax harmonisation – it proposes a rate of 71% – in that VAT rates are made subject to a common rule for we are imposing a total tax for the first time: excise duties plus VAT; by taking this line, we will achieve greater convergence and avoid indiscriminate price increases and penalising the manufacturing industries of the Member States of southern Europe. Secondly, the goal of combating fraud and smuggling. Thirdly, it also achieves the aim of greater prevention of health risks, which is not obtained through continually increasing taxation but, we feel, especially through specific investment in research too. Lastly, we feel that the position on cigars and cigarettes as presented in the Katiforis report is more convincing in that it also avoids potential employment slumps, thus safeguarding the principles laid down in Article 127 of the Treaty. Therefore, Mr Katiforis, the Italian members of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, European republicans, democrats, Italy of Values members and liberal s will support your report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on Monday, the voted against including this item on the agenda and if I now consider the resolution, I believe we were right to do so. Extending congratulations in a resolution is very civilised, of course, but hardly the task of this Parliament. The issue of hooligans cannot be termed urgent because this phenomenon has been around for years. I believe that, nevertheless, Parliament should look into this, but not as a matter of urgency. I would now like to say a few words on the events which unfolded in Rotterdam. Naturally, an investigation is necessary because the accusations are very serious. If a television team was locked up all night, then this needs to be investigated thoroughly and there had better be a very good reason as to why this was done. This inquiry is under way. The Dutch Public Prosecutor is involved in this matter and so it is completely premature on the part of this Parliament to pass a verdict on the incident at this stage. In my opinion, this is a long way off, and it is inappropriate to pass political judgement at a time when a Public Prosecutor is looking into a matter. Consequently, I believe that the amendments pertaining to this matter should be rejected. We could, of course, come back to them once it has become clear that human rights were violated, but I do think that passing such a verdict would be overstepping the mark at this stage.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I should like to speak on behalf of my colleague, Miss Lynne, who sadly has injured her shoulder, having fallen down the stairs here while showing people how dangerous a particular set of stairs was! Miss Lynne would have asked that we be allowed to close the debate on the question of British beef with motions for a resolution from the various political groups. I would like to make that proposal that the political groups be invited to submit motions for a resolution to close the debate on British beef.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am sure that we are all aware that piracy and counterfeiting constitute a very serious problem. Perhaps I do not need to point this out. There is clearly a risk that research, innovation, advertising investment, in short, innovation as a whole, will come to a standstill if industrial property rights are not adequately safeguarded. This is why these rights must be protected. There are certain factors that have exacerbated the current problem, perhaps the most important of which concerns the technical advances that have been made, which enable computing, audiovisual and phonographic material to be easily reproduced very cheaply. The available figures for forgeries in these areas are scandalous. What concerns us, then, is the impact that the completion of the internal market will have on the problem. In a Europe without borders, but having various legal systems, counterfeiters will obviously always choose the legal system that is the most beneficial to their own criminal ends. The Commission’s initiative in drafting the Green Paper is therefore praiseworthy, as it will initiate a debate to which all sectors concerned can make a contribution. We must remember that this debate will focus more on the contents of harmonisation than on harmonisation itself, since this harmonisation is the starting point that all parties have accepted. It may be premature for the European Parliament to enunciate its position on certain points, the precise content of which will emerge from the debate which is now beginning, but in some cases, it may be appropriate to establish this content. This applies, for example, to the issue of the right to information. It is precisely because we are aware of the problems encountered when introducing such a measure with regard to other laws in the past that we have to support the introduction of a law obliging vendors of illegal products to identify their supplier, as long as legislation on data protection and the constitutional right not to incriminate oneself are protected. Lastly, we must express our support for certain technical mechanisms which facilitate the identification of goods. Now – and this is the basis of the amendment tabled by the Socialist Group – it must be stressed that this mechanism cannot and must not identify the distributors, because this could endanger parallel imports between Member States. We have tabled an amendment specifically in order to prevent these measures from being used for inappropriate ends.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Katiforis legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 92/79/EEC, Directive 92/80/EEC and Directive 95/59/EC as regards the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco products, which calls upon the Commission to withdraw its proposal for a number of reasons unanimously upheld by the entire Italian section of the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (Republicans, Democrats and members of the Italy of Values party). The proposal to revise the current subsidies for tobacco growing would have had a disastrous effect on the economies of entire rural areas which are some of the most disadvantaged in the European Union, as can be seen from a recent European statistical analysis carried out by Eurostat. The Commission addresses the ‘tobacco issue’ purely from the point of view of health, which is why it attempts to question the provision of Community aid to growers and goes so far as to propose an early revision of the COM in tobacco in order to reduce quotas and cut subsidies to the sector. We feel that this opinion errs in that it is too rash, and I am glad to say that it was amended at the Gothenburg Summit. We are convinced that it would be wrong to penalise an agricultural sector which is at the heart of the economy of countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. Instead of reducing cigarette consumption, the Commission’s proposal would have created nothing but problems for manufacturers, who would have been forced to change the process of importing supplies from third countries with the result that national productions would have been replaced by lower quality imports. Lastly, we feel that the position of those who advocate combating smoking by abolishing aid to tobacco growers is ambiguous. Strangely, in fact, the Member States which do not grow tobacco but which have not banned smoking would receive sums benefiting their Northern European style of agriculture, which is already sufficiently subsidised, and, what is more, they would hypocritically continue to rake in millions of euro in taxes and excise duties on tobacco products and accessories. - Schörling report (A5-0356/2001)

Political group: ELDR