GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, we in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and in the Group of the European People’s Party believe that enlargement is a worthy objective in itself. It must not therefore be used by the Council as a bargaining chip to obtain strategic positions which have nothing to do with the actual political process of enlarging Europe. It must not be a bargaining chip to obtain certain modifications of the agricultural policy or to resolve other problems, and I therefore congratulate the Spanish Presidency on having done such good work and I directly condemn those governments, with Socialist majorities, which are exploiting the enlargement procedure, which this Parliament and European society are very attached to, to obtain agreements on other issues which they have few reasons for, by trying to strengthen their case by making their position conditional. With regard to the Turco report, which examines how the Structural, Cohesion and ISPA Funds were spent in 2000, I must repeat once again that the internal cohesion policy, the regional policy, of the European Union must not be changed as a result of the fact that poorer countries are entering. The internal cohesion between the richest and poorest regions and countries must be maintained, regardless of the fact that ten countries about to enter are clearly poorer. I believe that more of the Community budget should be spent and it should be better spent, in that order, and we must continue to try to ensure that executing the Community budget is not an obstacle course. We must simplify the procedures and trust in the executors.

Political group: PPE-DE
The position adopted in this report constitutes a step backwards from the previous position. Attacking organised crime is simply one part of the issue. It is equally important that we adopt practical measures on crime against the economy, which results, specifically, from money laundering. It is also significant that no practical measures have been proposed on the ‘offshore’ issue, the breaking of banking confidentiality during a judicial inquiry or even on the situation of assets acquired through money laundering, which is a criminal act, to prevent the use of financial funds created by such activity, at the inquiry stage. Finally, it is important to note that the report contains some confusion about the concepts of consultancy and accountancy, by creating get-out clauses and opportunities to escape providing information.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I support my colleague, Willi Rothley, on his report which calls for a new car insurance directive to improve the legal protection of accident victims. Our citizens have a right to receive equal legal protection wherever they are in the European Union. Every year, thousands of people drive across the continent on holiday. Holidaymakers driving from Bolton to Barcelona must be protected on a legal basis. The overall aim of the directive is extremely important in ensuring that there is a consistent and high level of legal protection. I wholeheartedly support the drive for improved compensation for national road traffic accidents, by obliging insurers to provide either an offer or a refusal of compensation within three months of receiving a claim. Clear and swift decisions are the best way of reassuring victims of the outcome of their claim. Furthermore, this report welcomes an EU minimum of EUR 2 m with future increases in line with inflation. Minimum amounts insured are out of date and this figure is a much more realistic sum. It is not just holidaymakers who will benefit from this new directive. People buying cars in other countries will also gain confidence from this measure. Insurers should be able to provide insurance for a maximum of 30 days for anyone who wishes to buy a vehicle registered in another Member State and drive it back to their own country to re-register it there. Public confidence in the legal aspects of road safety across the European Union must increase so that our citizens can travel freely from country to country without fear of huge legal fees and 15 intimidating legal systems. Only by improving the legal protection of accident victims can our citizens take full advantage of driving across the EU and make the most of freedom of movement. - Wallis report (A5-0134/2001)

Political group: PSE
Over the years, transport by road has become increasingly cheap, relatively speaking. That is why all kinds of goods are continuously being hauled back and forth to places where the raw materials or labour are cheap, or where the expected profits are the highest. It is even worse if living creatures are involved. For example, discarded work horses from Eastern Europe are transported en masse to Western Europe to be slaughtered there. During this transport, they incur fractures, they do not get any water or feed, and animal diseases are quickly spread across Europe. Since a political majority wishes to protect the interests of the traders and carriers involved, various petitions organised over the years have failed to improve the situation. Nearly a year ago, the European Commission responded to me that the solution is to improve the ventilation of animal trucks. I fear that this non-legislative advice based on experience gathered from applying existing directives will not really solve the problem either. However, the proposals by Mr Maat to limit transport for slaughter or fattening to eight hours or 500 km, to increase the penalties for infringements, to re-open the smaller, regional slaughterhouses that were closed down by EU legislation, and to abolish export subsidies for live animals for slaughter constitute a necessary step forward.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, an initial observation: there is one Member who sits on these benches and who speaks a language which is not his own. He could surely do with some English lessons, so that at least somebody may understand him. But what I wanted to refer to, Mr President, was the issue which Mr Barón Crespo, President of the Socialist Group, mentioned, in other words, the event of the seventh. We have seen today that the Council has taken a unilateral decision to organise an event to launch the debate on the future of the European Union on the seventh. And it has done so, as we have seen today, without the knowledge of the President of the Commission, and taking his name in vain. The President said that she was going to consider the issue, and I believe that, in view of what has been heard here, it would be better if the European Parliament did not attend that event, which is nothing more than a marketing stunt, and I would also ask the Commission not to attend. If we wish to debate the future of the European Union – that great public debate which must take place – we must do so from the outset on the basis of a consensus between the three institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in principle, these are two very important proposals for directives which we are discussing and which are being given very strong support by the Confederal Group of the . Where the directive regarding lorry drivers is concerned, this professional group will therefore be covered by the general legislation that regulates working time. This is obviously of significant interest not only to professionals but also to other road users. During the conciliation negotiations, there were several occasions on which I specifically emphasised the road safety aspect, which I think is important for those governments which are to administer this legislation in the future. It was also important that self-employed people should now be treated in the same way as other drivers for, from the road user’s point of view, it is immaterial whether he is run over by an employed or self-employed driver. What is perhaps worrying about this directive is that the transition periods are so long. It will in actual fact be, at best, seven years before it is implemented, and we know that, even then, it will subsequently be difficult to track and monitor how the legislation operates in practice. The second directive, on information and consultation, is a kind of framework agreement providing a legal basis that is important to workers’ being able to demand information and consultation rights. We must not, however, forget that – by means, for example, of Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the proposal for a directive, which offer scope for a more or less broad interpretation – it also provides legal opportunities to reject workers’ demands in certain cases. What is crucial, therefore, to how this directive goes on to operate in practice is how it is received in workplaces and how strong the trade unions are when it comes to pushing those demands to which the directive can give some leverage. I believe that this applies generally to this type of legislation. We can adopt directives which are sound and well-intentioned in many ways, but when they are then actually put into effect we know that we cannot, in this House, do very much. Nor do I believe that the governments of the Member States can do very much. I do not share Mrs Smet’s view that systems with tight controls can be designed. It is difficult to know what happens out on the roads, especially at night. It is difficult to know what goes on behind closed factory gates. It is only employees themselves who can do anything about what takes place. I therefore want to conclude this speech with a strong appeal to those in the workplace: Do not rely upon the problems’ being solved in the European Parliament or the Council, but assume that they have to be solved by yourselves and that you can be helped with them by the legislation that has been enacted in the form of the directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I too would like to congratulate you, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the . You are now the President of all of us, men and women.I would like to repeat something that I said to you when you visited our group a few days ago, which was that everyone knows that our politics are quite different, and I have not pretended otherwise to you, even considering the implications that this might have today, but political differences do not preclude having great respect for someone on a personal level. We hope that, as President, you will show the same qualities of loyalty and impartiality which won you many friends in this House when you were first Vice-President of the last Assembly. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
I understand it must be difficult for the Commission to give more precise answers in these final months. However, I want to make it clear that to many Members of this Parliament, across many different committees – I am a member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation – this piece of work on corporate social responsibility is extremely important. We would like to see a clear timetable emerging in June, and not postponement to some vague point in the future. I am very pleased that the Commissioner responsible for development has come in at this point as I wish to ask which Commission department – Social Affairs or other – will continue to lead in this area, and how coordination will continue within the Commission, because this issue cuts across many different departments there. I would also like to ensure that a range of parliamentary committees are also involved in the follow-up. This is an issue of extreme importance to Members of this Parliament and, if we are re-elected, we will keep pushing it forward.

Political group: PSE
British Conservatives have been in the forefront of the fight against international criminality including previous anti-money laundering initiatives. However, we believe that these measures go too far and are too restrictive on the freedom to transfer small sums of money and securities across European borders. The proposal's negative impact on legitimate transactions on this occasion outweighs the suggested benefits against money laundering. Therefore, British Conservatives will abstain on the final votes. - Kreissl-Dörfler report (A5-0141/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Lamy and Commissioner Fischler, I would like to pick up on two brief comments that the two Commissioners made this morning. Commissioner Lamy remarked that we were, so to speak, passing from the technical stage to the political stage of the negotiating process, since officials had, in December, come to a sort of agreement as to how negotiations were to be proceeded with, although it is still not yet clear how the political negotiators can actually put that into an active working calendar. The second comment that I found very interesting was from Commissioner Fischler, who said what we would do, and added that it would not be at any price. That is, of course, an allusion to the European agenda and to the issue of how our thinking can have any influence in the context of the WTO negotiations. What, though – if I may make so bold as to ask the two Commissioners – does that actually mean in concrete terms? Next year is an election year and a difficult one; you two will still be here in its first half, then things will get critical, and then – so to speak – you will no longer be there. We do not know who will be. The situation is similar on the American side – Bob Zoellick will not be coming back again either – and nor is the geostrategic situation straightforward; look at the way things are shaping up in India, look at China or at Brazil. So I ask you both: what do you now expect to happen, and how are you preparing yourselves for it? What is in your calendars for January, February, and March, and when do you think the political stage will begin? Now for my second question. Where is the pain barrier? Where do we really think it is? What is the ‘not at any price’ issue? The Singapore issues? I think not. Agriculture? Perhaps, but I have seen the draft working document on the market organisation for sugar. Will you, Commissioner, produce a final draft by the end of your term of office? You see, where is our pain barrier? If we know a bit more about that, I believe we might perhaps be able to be a bit more proactive in steering the process that you all and we all want. In relation to that, please allow me to put a final question to the two Commissioners: what do you now, really, think of Bob Zoellick’s latest venture? I heard brief indications that you take a positive view of it, but could you go into more detail about just how positive?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to thank Mr Maat for bringing forward a very practical report on animal transport, because it is absolutely sure that we all want to see animal transport tightened up. It is a very emotive issue, nowhere more so than in the UK. I would also like to thank him straight away for co-sponsoring my amendments to ask the Commission and the UK Government to look for an opt-out, especially on the transport of live horses to the continent for slaughter. This is something that has not happened in the UK for over 70 years, and we want to make sure it does not start to happen again. I thank Mr Maat very much for that. One of the good things about Mr Maat's report is that he has differentiated between animals going for slaughter and those going for further fattening. There is no justification for taking animals on huge journeys for slaughter – whenever possible they must be slaughtered in the country where they are reared. We have also heard that at the moment about EUR 52 million is still being paid out on export subsidies. A lot of these cattle are going to Lebanon, and their journeys do not end there: they continue for a great many hours after that. We have to make sure we put an end to that. As we put this legislation in place, one of the keys to this whole process is proper enforcement: to ensure that we have the right type of lorries and the proper rest periods. We must also ensure that if these international transporters do not meet the requirements, they have their licences taken away. This would send a very clear message to the industry that you cannot abuse the system. What we are trying to do is good, and we need to get the right type of transport in place. I disagree with the Commission proposal on the idea of a 12-hour rest on a lorry, especially if it concerns sheep. This is not practical and we must have an overall end to the journey. That is what Mr Maat is proposing in this report. I very much recommend the report to the House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we all know that in the pharmaceutical world there is a very long time lag between inventing a new product and having it ready for the market, generally 10 to 12 years. The product then still has to be launched and another 20 years must elapse before third parties can manufacture it. That is why the question arises as to whether instead of resorting to patent rights and compulsory licences, it would not be better to have a development fund for such cases and to make an effort, at international level, to make a large amount of money available so that by means of bulk purchasing medicines can be made available at correspondingly low prices. Let us not forget that the selling price is a combination of manufacturing costs and licence fees. Companies would be able to supply medicines at more favourable prices if volume purchasing applied. So my question is whether the Commission could take an initiative in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I commend all the reports before us which go some way to defining our common aspirations for the future of educational systems in the Union. They also make clear some of the issues which we now face in developing such systems. The first issue is the European educational area which hovers above all the reports rather like a question mark, and we undoubtedly have a variety of views on this: there is no doubt whatsoever, and this is without prejudice to the concept of subsidiarity, that we need to coordinate our education policies in the Union in pursuit of the Lisbon goals. If we do not do this, we cannot attain them: it is as simple as that. We need to have a coherent understanding of what constitutes good and what constitutes bad practice. We need to have an understanding about teaching and learning models, how we want to employ them, and what values we want to impart through them. We need to understand that this will involve considerable change, because of the new styles of education systems that we need today. We need to learn from best practice. We need therefore to have up-to-date hard and soft statistics to ensure that we can provide the most valuable benchmarks so that our systems match the very best. These reports also point to the development of educational content. At the risk of courting controversy I would remind you that Cisco Systems and Microsoft are already in our schools providing content. We need to make sure that they are providing the sort of content that we want to see in our schools. We need mobility. It is not just the key to a successful European single market, it is the key to a successful Union in its social and political content as well as its economic content. The mobility report has made considerable progress on this, but, how long has Bologna been around and yet failed to gain widespread application? How do we ensure equal access to mobility for all people when Member States do not have equal access to language skills? I would argue that for universal access to mobility we need to have universal access to language teaching and learning. Here, as elsewhere, new technology is one of the keys to unlock all of these solutions. We can install all the hardware and all the infrastructure we like all over Europe, but unless we have the educational systems to teach people skills in schools and in life-long learning, we will not be able to make the most of them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against the Duhamel report because I do not believe that we are taking the right approach. I agree with what Mr Berthu has said, that the idea of a single state with a single constitution completely undermines the national sovereignty of the Member States. This project has been sold on the idea of a constitution for the people, which is all well and good, but if you have a single constituency you are diluting the power of the individuals in the Member States. There has been talk about referenda and the amendments that were made to this report in relation to referenda. Referenda are very important, but in the case of a single constituency, where you ignore almost 50% in a Member State who may vote against it, this is not democratic. It is interesting to see people putting forward the idea of a referendum in this way because if you consider the changes that have taken place in the treaties over the years, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, very few citizens in the individual Member States have had a say and, as a result, we are not sure what the citizens in the Member States want. The recent referendum in Denmark on the euro shows there are very many people who, given the opportunity, would make different statements to those made in this House, but they do not have that opportunity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like firstly to express my appreciation to the Commission for the improvement represented by the XXVIIIth report on competition policy in the Union, when compared to previous reports. I would also like to highlight the work carried out by the rapporteur, Mr Rapkay, who has dissected this dense and comprehensive text in such a concise way. I would also like to fully support his comments on the need to allow the regions – such as the Basque Country, which I represent – a margin for action, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity. Nevertheless, I cannot forget the numerous criticisms, both from Member States and from market operators, which, given the broad margin for manoeuvre and discretion enjoyed by the Commission in its evaluation of specific cases, maintain that they suffer from legal insecurity in the absence of clear rules allowing interested parties to anticipate the position of the authorities and thereby make feasible requests for aid aimed at the promotion of economic activity and employment, the planning of company mergers etc. The only guarantee has been to seek prior favourable approval, through individual cases, which will take more than six or eight months to resolve, an excessively long period, which simply leads to problems of a lack of flexibility, affecting the generation of wealth and employment. I therefore believe that something is missing and I suggest that we establish more regulations, lay down clear rules, which will benefit all of us: businesspeople, investors, workers and the citizens in general.

Political group: Verts-ALE