GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – I would particularly like to express my own gratitude to Mr Langen for his report and for the great clarity with which, in writing and in his presentation today, he has brought to our attention what this is all about. I am glad to say that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is in substantial agreement with Mr Langen and finds no legal obstacles to this bloc exemption regulation. As Members of the House will know, the bloc exemption creates exemptions from normal competition law, of the kind Mr Langen mentioned, in relation to the calculation of premiums where net premiums may be jointly calculated by insurers. Secondly, in the establishment of standard policy conditions for direct insurance and common models illustrating profits from insurance policies involving an element of capitalisation. It also creates an exemption to make possible co-insurance, common coverage of certain risks and, finally, the coordination of technical specifications for safety equipment and procedures. The Commission says in its report that it is disappointed that the insurance industry has not taken up as much of that as it might have done. These are all areas where it seems clear that there is a genuine public interest in not insisting on the strictest rigours of competition law. What that draws to our attention, in a philosophical way, is that even in a competitive market, insurance is inherently a collective activity in which people share risks among themselves. If I might make a remark about a currently controversial topic in my own country, I think it is a pity to see such vigorous efforts being made to de-mutualise excellent old mutual assurance companies which fully express the collective aspect of insurance, and I am sad to think of a raid being made on the Standard Life in this way.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, as regards fishing in international waters we need a responsible and non–exploitative approach. We cannot continue to export our problems. I would like this House to support Mrs Attwooll's amendments, which go some way towards improving the report, and my group will definitely be voting for these amendments. However, we cannot vote for the report itself, even if – as we hope – those amendments are adopted, because of the underlying policy and belief that we in the European Union can export our over–capacity, and that we have some historic right to exploit developing countries. It is true that down the centuries many Member States have colonised other countries and unjustly exploited the weaker and poorer countries of the world, but in the 21st century we should realise that the imperialist approach is wrong. We need to look at the social and economic contribution we make to developing countries, and in relation to fishing agreements this leaves a lot to be desired. This is not just a Spanish problem. To my own shame my own country, Ireland, has the Atlantic Dawn, which is an exploitative vessel. Like many other huge vessels – in fact it is worse than other vessels because it is one of the largest there is – it goes to developing countries, acting as if it had some right to exploit the resources of other countries without any checks. Despite what has been said about European Union agreements, at least there is a certain amount of control, though they leave a lot to be desired. However, when it comes to private agreements, there is no control whatsoever. We need to look at our position as regards developing countries. I support what Mrs Attwooll has said. We cannot say one thing, and then do another.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mr De Clercq and myself have voted against the proposal because we did not think it was appropriate to be voting on the Middle East today. We have also voted against out of protest against the weak stance adopted by the European institutions on foreign policy in general and in the crisis situation in the Middle East in particular. Against this backdrop, to level criticism at the United States and its attitude smacks of arrogance. Finally, I regret the prejudice displayed by a majority of MEPs with regard to the situation in the Middle East which means, inter alia, that the fight against terrorism cannot be maintained adequately.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Stability and Growth Pact is not just any old rule; it is at the heart of the regulatory framework of the euro. It is interesting that applause came at once from the wrong quarter. In every country, those who pursue inflationary policies suddenly felt themselves to be affirmed and encouraged by what the President of the Commission had to say. The truth of the matter is that, throughout the history of political economy, statistics prove that lasting growth can be achieved only by stability and a stable currency. Run up more debt, and what you get is not growth, but inflation and stagnation. It was Helmut Schmidt who said, ‘I would rather have 5% inflation than a 5% increase in unemployment.’ Afterwards, he ended up with higher inflation and more unemployment. Such is the demonstrable reality of our continent's economic history. (Interruption) How, then, Mr President of the Commission, are the rules to be adhered to if they are, at the same time, categorised as stupid? For God's sake, is it not enough to be in debt to the tune of EUR 4 700 billion? Getting into debt is the easy way out, incurring fewer debts and consolidating budgets the hard one, but we know from the Bible that easy is the way that leads to destruction. The hard way, by which I mean budget consolidation, is the right one, and, suddenly, we are unwilling to expect our governments to take it. No, that was a mistake, Mr President of the Commission! Such an elegant provocation ... (Interruption) ... is all very well, but what we need here is a serious policy. Only a serious policy is reliable and has effects that can be calculated. Mr President of the Commission, for the sake of the euro's success, withdraw your statement! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, this debate, which is a repeat of other, previous debates would, on the surface, appear superfluous and outdated. A debate on the death penalty is a debate which harks back to the development of a civilised legal system, which is something Europe already has. And yet it is topical and important in terms of world affairs. It is important for the Parliament of Europe – of Western Europe – to treat it as such since two traditions have evolved in Europe over the millennium: one which derives from the Roman tradition which influenced the European legal culture, particularly that of Italy and Germany, and recently paved the way for the new rights to freedoms, and then the tradition of Common Law, which is a basic part of the British Bill of Rights. Despite certain very tragic events which have taken place in Europe, despite the fact that there have been fascist and communist cultures that have trampled underfoot rights to freedoms and the rights of individuals, I feel it noteworthy that agreement has been reached time and time again in this Parliament in discussing the death penalty and firmly condemning it in any form whatsoever. In my opinion, the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is under discussion, for which Nice will be a decisive moment, is based on this value, the value of the human person, the value of the right to freedom. We Italians are of the tradition of Cesare Beccaria, as has already been said, but Beccaria was a man who belonged to Europe, who rejected mediaeval, obscurantist law in its entirety in favour of modern law, in favour of a legal system which does not make us wolves to our fellow men but, by means of peaceful civil coexistence, guarantees freedoms. Capital punishment is always incompatible with peace in civil coexistence and we must find the courage to declare that accepting a moratorium – although that would be great step forward – is not enough to make a country genuinely democratic: to achieve true democracy it must abolish the death penalty. And so it is true: a humanitarian undertaking is not sufficient. We need to shout it from the rooftops that the death penalty is against the law.

Political group: PPE-DE
I entirely agree with Mr Swoboda. I think it is very important that we have some mechanism in the House to adjust the agenda when an urgent situation such as this arises. The sad fact is that, although this particular disease affects only animals, it can be transmitted by air over a distance of some 200 kilometres and therefore any Member State within the European Union and beyond is vulnerable. It is therefore a matter of urgency. The Commission should make a statement, whether in the presence of the Council or not, and I urge you to put it to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I would like to say that, as regards taxation of aircraft fuel, I am pleased by the reaction from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. They have, on the whole, taken on board the arguments that I have presented. Aircraft are currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. It is estimated that around 5 percent come from aeroplanes. The number of flights is also expected to double in around 15 years. If we are to be able to live up to the requirements for reduced emissions of greenhouse gases we must take every measure possible to limit them. An example of such a measure is to make more use of financial instruments of control. As Mr Van Dam has also said, aircraft fuel should therefore not be exempt from tax. The Commission’s communication states that the effect is so small that it is not worth doing anything about it. I object to this line of reasoning. Aviation is a fast growing sector. If the effect is small today, it will, in any case, be larger tomorrow. This kind of reasoning is dangerous because it can easily lead to a situation in which no one does anything anywhere. We must start at one end. We cannot have the present structure and the present technology and at the same time achieve the environmental objectives. We must either change the structure or the technology or both. I think that the fairest thing from the point of view of the different transport sectors and also from the point of view of competition is for us to lead the way and introduce aircraft fuel tax within the EU. At the same time, however, we must pursue the line of revising the Chicago Convention of 1944 so that we establish a different system in the international area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I express my disappointment at my Green colleagues and my own group, because I was with no opportunity to vote on two key amendments on the common, foreign and security policy. One was an amendment on the arms industries and arms exports and the other was on nuclear weapons. It was very important for us to have an opportunity to say whether nuclear weapons play a role of any kind in the future of the common, foreign and security policy. Unfortunately, my Green colleagues deemed these amendments unnecessary, which raises the question whether the are changing their policy on nuclear weapons and on the arms industries. I voted against the report itself, because I feel that more centralisation means less safety for smaller Member States, less democracy, less involvement of people at a local and national level. This is not in the interest of the ordinary people of Europe. A new constitution for Europe that overrides national constitutions, a legal personality for the European Union and, of course, more militarisation: this is not the kind of Europe I want. I want a de-militarised Europe, a democratic Europe where the people have the real say, not bureaucrats.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament’s annual report on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the EU is an important tool for understanding how fundamental rights are being respected and protected in Europe as a whole and within each of the Member States. We need a rigorous and effective assessment of the quality of that protection, enabling a clear overview of the current situation as regards fundamental rights. Then we will be able to take decisions in this field. I am sorry to say that this year’s report does not fulfil these requirements. The first draft of the report might have met with a broad consensus, but this final version is totally unacceptable. The rapporteur has opted to draw up a sort of shopping list in which he criticises a selection of EU Member States at the same time as suggesting unrealistic and irrelevant proposals. The following proposals are completely unacceptable: - granting the right of asylum to victims of persecution by non-government agents; - granting access to education to all children present in a given country, even if they are there illegally; - passing European legislation on homosexual marriage; - allowing third-country nationals to vote in local elections and elections to the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are particularly anxious that the situation in Chechnya seems to have worsened dramatically since the oral question was submitted to the Council. The office of the OSCE in Grozny has been shut, and the visit to Chechnya of the delegation planned by the European Parliament was called off for no acceptable reason. The reports by the journalist Anna Politkovskaja have been shocking to read, the horrific deeds of the army continue to go unpunished, and the enforced evacuation of the refugee camps in Ingushetia goes on. In these circumstances it is obvious we cannot just let the European Council shoulder the responsibility for supervision and monitoring: the European Union must also adopt a more purposeful policy in the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, this would be nothing more than a parliamentary incident were it not for the simple fact that, in the Basque Country and in Spain, when Batasuna threatens, ETA kills. And this is a perfect illustration of the situation we are living in in our country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the aim of Mr Corbett’s report is to strengthen Parliament’s powers of control over the texts implementing legislative acts prepared by the Commission in the context of what is mysteriously known as comitology. The approves the main thrust of the report and in particular it supports the idea that, in the case of a disagreement between Parliament and the Commission on a draft implementing text, the latter should not be able to override Parliament’s opposition. If the Commission did not agree with Parliament on this point, the would gladly support the request that could be made by the rapporteur for a referral to committee. There are two points on which we disagree with Mr Corbett’s report, however. Firstly, it lays down that if Parliament does not agree to the text proposed by the Commission, the latter may simply withdraw its text without preparing a new one and without taking any legislative initiative. This power seems to us to be completely excessive. It is equivalent to an authorisation to go on strike as far as the production of implementing texts is concerned, and we cannot support it. The aim of our requests for a separate vote is to rule out such a possibility. Secondly, Mr Corbett’s report suggests that, if the Commission were to undertake a new legislative initiative, because it thought it would be impossible to overcome its disagreement with Parliament simply by amending its text, the text prepared by the Commission would be provisionally applicable until the adoption of the new legislative text. We do not believe that this is acceptable. In fact, it seems to us to be an abuse to allow the Commission to override, for a very long period, the opposition of Parliament, even when the disagreement between the two institutions is so serious and so deep-seated that it cannot be overcome by a simple amendment to the draft, but requires recourse to a legislative procedure. To give the Commission the power to impose the disputed text, for several months or even years, would be to acknowledge officially that the Commission has the power to ignore or violate the law. Those are the two reservations that we have. We have not tabled amendments, but merely requests for a separate vote, the aim of which is to correct the report on this point. Otherwise we approve the report and we congratulate the rapporteur for his work, which is remarkable for its quality.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Kauppi, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Mrs Piia-Noora Kauppi, for this report, which met with very broad support in the competent committee. That means that there was excellent communication between all the parties involved. The report constitutes yet further evidence of the competence for which our young colleague has, in a short time, acquired a reputation in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as also for the industriousness shown by the quality of her work. Many thanks for that. The report is, secondly, evidence of our need, in many instances, for ‘more of Europe’. It is only together that we can combat fraud more efficiently and thus more successfully. In this connection, we need, on the one hand, better coordination in order to move towards cooperation and exchange of information, and, on the other hand, an improved and more professional legal framework to facilitate this process of information and coordination more readily. The Group of the says ‘yes’ to improved cooperation by the authorities against VAT fraud, although we of course emphasise that we are not only opposed to VAT fraud but also every form of fraud. In any case, 250 instances of it were uncovered in the first half of 1998, with losses amounting to over EUR 500 million. I can do no other than associate myself with the rapporteur in saying that we do not need obligatory translations in cross-border requests for information, but rather more flexibility as regards the data protection directive, deregulation to make things simpler, rationalisation and flexibility to get the work processed more quickly, so that we can get on the fraudsters' trails and so create greater security in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wanted to ask a brief question about the European Patients' Platform and to ask the two Commissioners whether they are happy about the degree of independence of those who represent patients. I do so against the background of articles published in the British Medical Journal in the United Kingdom. If the Commissioners have not had sight of these articles I would be happy to let them have them. We all understand that without the support of the pharmaceuticals industry there would be very few patients' voices, but that voice does not come without a price. I would be interested in your views on that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to thank Mr Florenz for this report. I would particularly like to thank him because he initially took quite a different position on the end-of-life vehicles directive. I think it is a sign of greatness to change your position and make clear that producer liability is possible. If we had not found so satisfactory a solution to the problems with the end-of-life vehicles directive, we would not have been able to adopt this directive, either, because it would not have been evident why some were excluded from producer liability and others not. I therefore believe it is a very great success not only for the environment but also for consumer protection. I think it is very important that consumers will in future be able to have greater certainty that prices are telling the ecological truth and that consumers need not buy new hardware with every new software program. In this way, we are also giving industry incentives to pursue not only environmentally friendly policies but also consumer-friendly ones. I think it is very important that we have succeeded in arranging this individual financing and also that we were able to prevent the Council having its way and that small and medium-sized undertakings will not be released from liability. I would, however, also ask the Commission to strictly control and enforce this individual financing later. Only then will this directive really be a milestone in environmental and consumer protection.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last week, some of us were given a demonstration of how the documents are now available. As a former rapporteur, together with Mr Cashman, I have to say that our Administration, our services, deserve a great deal of the credit for the efficient manner in which they have now put this procedure in progress. I hope that the teething troubles will soon be overcome. However, sterling work has been done, and we should be able to say so once in a while.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, fifteen years after the countries of Eastern Europe threw off the straitjacket of communism, what we are seeing is a completely new life and, in reality, new countries. This is a fantastic achievement by these people. As members of the EU they will, just like the rest of us, gain full freedom of movement to promote increased solidarity and strength throughout the whole Union. In different ways during my work with enlargement, I have met many ambitious, hard-working people. I therefore regret that, in the existing Member States, we seem to be so afraid of the workforce coming here. I am ashamed that, in my own country, there is talk of social tourism. This freedom of movement would mean a necessary injection into our slightly stagnated labour markets. Agriculture is more important in these countries than in the existing Member States. The areas are larger; three times as many people are involved in agriculture as in the present EU; and agriculture represents a larger proportion of the gross national income, that is to say, agricultural policy is more important for these countries than it really is for us. We need a policy for all the countries. We need, of course, to ensure that the new Member States have organisations that provide support and control and that they can tighten up food standards and the monitoring of animal and plant health. Much has happened and, if we compare the current situation with the Commission’s report, we can be pleased about the information that we are receiving to the effect that much of what had not been achieved by 30 September 2003 has now been achieved. We hope that the rest can be done by 1 May 2004. As far as the other two countries that we are dealing with, Bulgaria and Romania, are concerned, it is important to report that Bulgaria has made substantial progress in recent years and that the country deserves great praise for this. Romania has been in a more difficult situation and has further to go in order to catch up but, even this morning, we have received reports that things are happening, and of course we must recognise this and approve of it. Romania is the most typical agricultural country of the candidate countries, having many small farms. Forty per cent of the population still works in agriculture, and many farms rely on subsistence farming. A huge economic and social change is necessary in order for development to be made possible, but we must remember that we have a shared responsibility. The candidate countries have their responsibility, but the existing Member States must also take responsibility. The Commission must participate rather than just making demands. It must also stimulate and make resources available. More effective use must be made of the SAPARD resources. Having tried to follow the developments in Central and Eastern Europe for almost 40 years, I feel sincere joy at being able to welcome these countries both on 1 May 2004 and during 2007.

Political group: ELDR