GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, like so many others here today, I believe this is a good measure. This is a useful measure and it is one which we all need. Most of the technical issues have been resolved. There are some details to be finalised but most of the technical issues have been resolved. We have arrived at the final question. In the first reading debate it was only the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee which asked this question and it was only myself as the draftsman of the opinion of that committee who posed that question in Parliament. That is quite simply: Who pays? The Council common position reached a reasonable compromise in that the manufacturers should pay a significant part of the cost, not all of it as Mr Bowis has mistakenly said. In fact perhaps as little, the lawyers tell us, as 20% or one-fifth of the cost. That is not unreasonable. If you look at the UK consumer for example, who buys a Rover, as Mr Lange has indicated or for that matter any other make of car in the UK and who has for years been paying excessive prices for those cars, over and above comparable prices in other parts of Europe, why should they pay? They have paid already. Why should the very same people as taxpayers or as future car buyers, pay again to dispose of the vehicle that the manufacturer has made the profit from? I cannot accept that. There are amendments here today that are proposing that should be the case. I cannot accept it and I will not vote for it. The responsibility for these cars lies with the manufacturer. It is the manufacturer who has to provide the infrastructure and provide a reasonable part of the cost of disposal. The common position does not preclude the possibility of contributions being made by government. The common position is a reasonable compromise. Some of the amendments today are totally unreasonable in that they take away completely the responsibility from the car manufacturer of paying a little if any of the cost of disposal of cars on the road. I cannot accept that and on behalf of the taxpayers and the consumers of Europe I am voting against those amendments.

Political group: PSE
In the Netherlands, my party, the Socialist Party, supports the initiative launched by a large number of peace and development organisations to institute an arms embargo against Israel by means of a temporary injunction. This is in the light of the ever-increasing violation of human rights by the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territories and the destruction caused there. Parliament's resolution on the third annual report with regard to the code of conduct on arms exports is founded on the assumption that the EU's external policy is guided by values of democracy and human rights, and that arms exports may not worsen the region’s instability. Moreover, a majority voted today for the amendment in which military-industrial relations with conflicting parties in the Middle East are condemned. Meanwhile, the Dutch Schiphol airport remains the link and focal point of the arms trade between the USA and Israel. This is bound to cause enormous bitterness amongst the victims and also further instability in the region. The systematic oppression of the Palestinians gives every reason to refuse licences for the export of arms within the framework of the European code of conduct. I call on the Commission to help put an end to the escalation of violence and to support actions by citizens against Israeli violence in the Palestinian territories as a matter of urgency.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to thank the Council for its statement and thank the President of the Commission for his contribution. I should like to make a few observations about the Council reforms and the problem of illegal immigrants. As far as Council reforms are concerned, three issues appear to me to be of major importance. These are the improvement and revaluation of the General Affairs Council, the improvement of the decision-making procedure and especially the public nature of Council legislation. It seems to me that the General Affairs Council should be split up as a matter of urgency, particularly because the specialist councils have pulled far too much power towards themselves, and the General Affairs Council seems to have lost its coordinating task. It might also be helpful if in all Member States, people in charge of European affairs would actually be given the title of minister so that they are put on an equal footing as most specialist ministers. This would facilitate the coordinating role of the relevant ministers both nationally and in the Council. As far as the decision-making procedure is concerned, I should like to advise the Council to study the 34 types of decision in order to find out whether improvements can be made in the Council on this score without amending the Treaty. Decision-making as it stands is totally lacking transparency and the scope of the decisions is unclear. Measures to simplify these and to promote transparency would be very desirable. As far as this transparency is concerned, I believe it could be a very important improvement, without changing the Treaty, if public access were organised in the case of decision-making on European legislation. It is one of the fundamental rules of democracy that a legislator lays down legislation in public. The Council of Ministers is one of the few bodies in the world that does not do that, and that is really no longer acceptable. A decision, therefore, to make those components of the Council public that are involved with legislation is required as a matter of urgency. I should like to finish off with a comment on illegality. I welcome the fact that border police will be introduced, but perhaps making airports into external borders again could also be considered. Since at present, security checks are being made at airports anyway, it would be easy also to show your passport. This may be a little like swearing in church, but in my view, the issue of illegal immigrants in Europe must be solved, and the stepping up of security at airports could be an attempt at a solution. In fact, I have always been opposed to the opening up of airports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European aviation industry is in full swing and is experiencing exciting times. Since 11 September 2001, there has not been a dull moment. Before I comment on the content of the reports, I should like to tell the House how satisfied I am that we have received a European approval for the merger of Air France and KLM and that the competent American authority has also given its stamp of approval. This is important for the industry, particularly in terms of strengthening the European aviation industry, because there is more to come. Even more is yet to be done to ensure that the industry has a sound economic basis. With regard to the report by my colleague Mr Clegg, who has now left the House, I should like to stress the value of the amendment in the light of increasing competition. Many international competitors of European aviation companies operate unaffected by government measures, and this enables them to compete with European aviation companies in improper ways. It is good to stand up to this sort of practice. As far as the report by Mr Dhaene is concerned, I find it extremely agreeable if someone can indicate so specifically and realistically why he is not writing an own-initiative report at the moment. I think this bears witness to much class and I expect him to organise another bicycle trip; perhaps that is when the next round of discussions can be held. Finally, as for Mr Nicholson's report, I am pleased that we were able to work together so intensively at a very early stage, across the political divide, to achieve a realistic result which is also in keeping with the ICAC (International Civil Aviation Conference) agreements that refer to a system of international premiums. Within this framework for European aviation, distortion of competition is virtually ruled out. The special exemption to which attention was drawn this evening is, of course, extremely important for ultra-light aircraft, government aircraft and historic aeroplanes. I am delighted with the progress and I also think it is very positive that Mr Nicholson has made every effort, right until the end, to ensure that we have a sound product here before us.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, since I have sat with Willy Rothley for the last ten years, I have been a privileged witness of his determination to make progress on this issue. I would like to congratulate him and recognise his efforts, since he really deserves it. Furthermore, I would like to stress that both the President-in-Office of the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission and my colleague, Mr Lehne, have pointed out that respect for primary law includes a very important principle, that of the unity of Community fiscal legislation. In our proposal there is a modification of the exceptional fiscal status, taken up in the so-called ‘Belgian compromise’, which only makes sense in so far as it is a delegation, a kind of opting out with regard to general law, but which cannot be interpreted as a general power before the States to establish taxation on the sums paid by the Community institutions. With this exception, the proposal that the various political groups are now presenting in the European Parliament could effectively represent a step forward in the establishment of unitary status with regard to the European Union. I do not believe that now is the time to invoke the subsidiarity principle, but quite the opposite: we are building a European Union which must be based on common institutions with a common operation, and this is what explains the proposal for European parliamentary statute and a statute for European political parties. It is not a question of granting privileges of any type, but of establishing a situation of equality amongst all the Members of the European Parliament. I hope that we can approve the text without any of the amendments presented.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not intend in any way to criticise the Environment Committee or the rapporteur, but like Mr Corbett I wish to emphasise that there must be a better way to conduct voting than this. We need some constitutional change to enable the committees to work properly rather than the House as a whole acting as a committee. * * * Report (A5-0141/2001) by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes (COM(2000) 815 – C5-0684/2000 – 2000/0315(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0173/2001) by Mrs Hautala, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (COM(2000) 334 – C5-0369/2000 – 2000/0142(COD)) On the subject of Amendment No 70

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have personally been taken to task by Commissioner Patten, as have several Members, which is why I think we at least have the right to respond. It is unusual for the Commission to have the last word, having taken Members to task and especially having pointed out that it is not up to a Member to check up on funding granted by the Commission, particularly to the Palestinian Authority. I maintain all that I said about education in Palestine. Even if the European Union does not pay for these books directly, it certainly pays for the teaching. What Chris Patten has just told us is a justification for teaching that instils hatred and martyrdom.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to thank the rapporteur sincerely for a very balanced report. The major issue in this report is a ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in agricultural production. I ardently support the ban. In certain EU countries this has already been done voluntarily. The long-term use of antibiotics has serious adverse effects when microbes develop into mutations that are disease-resistant. The rapporteur has drawn up a very balanced report, as I have already said. There are, however, different views in our group also. What should our attitude be towards coccidiostats as a remedy against parasites for use with poultry? It would be wrong if their use were not regulated at all and they remained a ‘grey area’. The aim must be to abandon the use of coccidiostats, but that cannot be done at once as they cannot yet be replaced by vaccination. A certain period of transition is therefore required. I enthusiastically support the rapporteur’s proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Markov, for his constructive cooperation in preparing the report. We are basically concerned here with three issues: health and safety in the working environment, road traffic safety and equal conditions of competition. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, we have mainly confined ourselves to health and safety, but these issues belong together. Proper driver health and safety whereby, for example, drivers were thoroughly rested when they took the wheel, would promote road safety. Minimum rules throughout the internal market would also guarantee that there was no distortion of competition. It is rather odd that there should be proposals to reject this report. There is considerable agreement between the Council, the Commission and, I hope, also the majority in Parliament that this 18-year-old regulation now needs to be changed, partly as a result of digital tachographs now being used. The big problem, and one of the reasons why change is required, is, in actual fact, the poor compliance with the existing regulation. I myself can see that there is poor compliance in my own country. I wish therefore especially to draw attention to a proposal that is very important in the new regulation, namely that the Member States’ supervisory authorities be able to take legal proceedings in cases of rest period infringements, even if the infringement has taken place in the territory of another Member State. There are a number of aspects of the existing report that we Social Democrats, both in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, would like to see strengthened, for example the minimum rest period per 24 hours and the maximum driving time. We have therefore tabled Amendments Nos 105 and 106. We also think that the minimum requirement in terms of the working environment is that a driver must not be compelled to spend his long weekly rest period in the cab. We have therefore tabled Amendment No 107. This amendment has unfortunately been wrongly translated in the Swedish version, which is why the English version applies. Amendment No 110 is about the need not to remunerate drivers according to a pre-arranged distance to be travelled. Paying drivers on a piecework basis is quite unjustifiable. In conclusion, Amendment No 113 is aimed at requiring the two sides of industry at European level to carry out regular evaluations of this new regulation.

Political group: PSE
The EIB lags far behind better-known institutions such as the World Bank in terms of transparency, accountability and the ways it addresses environmental and social issues in its work. Founded in 1958 under the Treaty of Rome, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is the official financing institution of the European Union. However, there seems to be little public knowledge of the Bank's existence and operations, although it is a public institution that lends more money every year than, for example, the better-known World Bank. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, sustainable development has become a central objective of EU cooperation. According to the new Article 6 in the EC Treaty, environmental protection requirements must be integrated into other EU policies. - Bullmann Report (A5-0034/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, supplementary pensions and complementary pensions schemes are of course gaining constantly in importance and in market value on account of democratic development. Increasing mobility on the part of employees in the European Union necessitates a Community legal framework for managing complementary pensions schemes. But there is also a long overdue need to bring order to taxation systems. Incidentally, it has of course occurred to me that the Commission’s proposal is definitely only aimed at harmonising investment regulations, which does not do justice to the issue, that is to say, it completely misses the point. What I am saying is that we now have the perfect opportunity to extend the European social system further and to develop it further in a judicious manner. Remember that complementary pensions schemes are schemes that make provision for old age. This makes sense and there are many reasons as to why it is absolutely essential that we bear this in mind for the future. If pensions are one of our real concerns then we must ensure that they are of a high quality, and account must be taken of the biometric risks. Only good quality products will be able, in the context of the second and third pillars, to fulfil a social function for the European social model. Otherwise, all we would be talking about here would be capital redemption insurance, which is not the same thing at all. That would constitute misrepresentation of the product. Therefore please do not support the idea that it is necessary to channel the capital investment products already in existence into the European social model. That would do our cause no good at all. I would like to dedicate the last sentence, in particular, to Mr Balfe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the OSCE has, as we know, been expelled. Even though he had a visa, the German ex-minister Norbert Blüm was sent back by the Russian authorities while he was on his way to Chechnya, and the delegation from this Parliament was barred from the Duma. The Russians do not want anyone in the region. What I want to ask you is this: Could the Council not put pressure on Russia, so that a delegation could travel to Chechnya as soon as possible, with the Commission represented by Commissioner Nielson or some other Commissioner, accompanied by members of Parliament and the Council, in order to gather information on the ground? The Russians can get first-hand information in the European Union anywhere and at any time. We want our Russian partners to accord us the same right of being able to inform ourselves where and as things are happening.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as in previous years, this debate is characterised by two elements which we could describe as endemic. One relates to the general amounts and the other to the deficiencies in the rules on budgetary management. Our differences on each of the spending categories are clear and I am not going to go into the detail. Commissioner, representatives of the Council, we need the budget to be an effective and credible tool which works for employment, for research, for support for small businesses and for the construction of a genuine area of justice and security. Parliament has shown flexibility and austerity in this procedure and it is therefore in a position to ask the Council not to be politically autocratic and to show unequivocal signs that it is prepared to negotiate. I trust that you will take advantage of the flexibility demonstrated by our rapporteur, Carlos Costa, whose work – as well as the efforts of the other two rapporteurs, Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Seppänen – deserves to be congratulated. With regard to the resources intended for external Union action, we demand that this Parliament’s undeniable political objectives are guaranteed, and these include providing resources for areas which are essential to world balance, such as the Mediterranean and Latin America. In this procedure, the Commission proposes using the flexibility instrument to finance the restructuring of the Community fleets which fished in the area of the defunct fisheries agreement with Morocco. This decision is fair, technically correct and necessary. It deals with a very serious problem which affects employment and a key activity of many regions, and which arises in a context of crisis. We must remember that we are about to implement a new common fisheries policy which has been dogged by intolerable discrimination for decades when compared to other economic activities, from the point of view of internal market rules. As for budgetary management, this Parliament has repeatedly condemned the Commission’s inability to put an end to the problem of the so-called anomalous RAL. In this respect, we have produced a good strategy, which our rapporteur has mentioned, which is closely related to the reform of the Commission. We must bear in mind that in the last three financial years very high payments were not used. We must therefore find rules which work, methods which allow faster implementation and rules which shorten the cycle of projects. As the last speaker, I hope that the Commission and the Council obey the evangelical maxim when it comes to paying attention and that the last are put first, not only in the Kingdom of Heaven, but also here in Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the Commissioner for his friendly and extensive reply and also apologise on behalf of Mr Obiols who, contrary to what he would have liked, has not been able to get to the House on time today. I believe that the Commissioner has given us a variety of reasons to think that the European Commission is taking the same approach as Parliament. We must prevent one of the greatest successes of European Union external policy, the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean process, from entering a period of stagnation. This process must not be limited to Euro-Mediterranean summits or ministerial meetings, such as the one which is going to take place next April under the Spanish Presidency in Valencia. It is therefore necessary to implement mechanisms which lower the level in a vertical sense and also broaden it in a horizontal sense. I suggest that, with regard to what the Commissioner has already said, we add, the possibility of relations between civil society, trade unions, women’s organisations, young people, as he has also already mentioned, and, of course, the cultural field. I would like to hear the Commission’s views in this regard.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a problem in the Dutch version, and I understand that this also occurs in various other language versions. It concerns the word ‘identity’, which is wrong, and should be ‘identification’. We do not want religious or political symbols to appear in passports and on identity cards. That is the issue.

Political group: ELDR