GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
British Conservative MEPs today voted in favour of the Lisi report, but with a number of serious reservations about the final position adopted by both the Parliament and the Council. These concerns centred around the levels of compensation not being related to the cost of tickets, which could have serious implications for budget carriers, but more importantly, the deletion of the clause relating to force majeure which render airlines liable to pay compensation in circumstances genuinely beyond their control. However, given that this measure increases protection given to the consumer and provides an incentive for airlines to improve their performance in respect of the services they provide to their customers, Conservative MEPs felt that this was a compelling reason, despite the reservations outlined above, to support the measure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish first to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for her excellent preparatory work. Security is an important issue in shipping. My worry has been that small ships operating domestic services, such as ferries and coastal craft, should not have to be included in what is administratively very cumbersome security action. The committee has already given attention to this and the matter should be remedied by the amendments proposed. My other worry has to do with the increase in costs for small and medium-sized port facilities. If different security-related equipment, fencing and other investments have to be in place very promptly, transport services will have to raise charges and, as a result, ports will lose their competitive edge. I hope these two issues will be remedied in the vote and I hope they will also be taken into account when the Commission interprets the implementation of the directive.

Political group: ELDR
In the wake of the Lisbon Summit, ‘e-Europe 2002’ and the action plans for ‘e-Europe 2005’ were adopted in the aim of benefiting from the contribution that the new information and communication technologies (ICT) could make to economic growth. ‘eLearning’ or electronic education seeks to use these technologies in education and training. The only thing is that, to those who have focused so much on this entire area, it must be stated that the sums involved are too low, especially given the desire to encourage the integration of the new information and communication technologies into the various European education and training systems, thereby improving their quality and accessibility. As the rapporteur points out, a key approach is to focus on the training of teachers and not only on connecting schools to the Internet. One only has to look at the data supplied on schools’ connections and the use of the Internet by teachers to understand the enormous discrepancies and major inequalities that remain in the European Union. The report attempts, therefore, to expand and improve the Commission’s proposal, and so we have voted for it, although it does not go as far as we would have liked, because it is also important for all students to have equal access to the Internet, which is far from being the case.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Swedish Moderate Party delegation in the Group considers that the articles on criminalisation in the report on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography are vague in places, which makes it difficult to gain an overview of the criminal area. We have voted in favour of the report as we assume that no constitutional change needs to be made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Miguélez Ramos, on her work and on her will to reach quick agreements so that a measure of this nature can be adopted speedily and thus be applied immediately. As some of my fellow Members have said quite rightly during the debate on this regulation, in view of the existence of terrorism we are faced with a series of dangers. We have adopted measures in this Parliament. We have adopted measures on the initiative of the Commission, which, in an active way, has been presenting proposals to us during this legislature for improving security in all forms of transport. We have adopted them and we are on the point of adopting them in the field of maritime transport. In the field of maritime transport we are concerned with international organised forms of terrorism, but there is also a form of terrorism which causes desolation internally, in cases such as Spain. This needs to be combated and measures need to be adopted, and that is what we are dealing with. It is clear that we are facing problems and that adjustments will have to be made, but improving our safety, improving traffic safety, improving security in ports is a necessity and an obligation which we must fulfil. I would therefore like to congratulate the Commissioner on her proposals and the rapporteur on her determination and will for these measures to be applied quickly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a Europe that is functioning properly needs transparent and comparable statistical material on its Member States, not least with regard to recording taxes and social contributions. We have rightly reached agreements in this respect in the European system of national and regional accounts, ESA 95. On closer examination, it now appears that the information recorded on taxes and social contributions is not as precise as was hoped because it does not always correspond to the amounts actually collected or collectable for a particular assessment year. The aim of the proposal under discussion is to refine the recording procedure by applying a correction factor both to cash data and data evidenced by assessments and assessment registers. The Group agrees with the Commission proposal in this regard. Two questions still remain, however. In view of the fact that the proposal effectively contains an amendment to the ESA 95 Regulation and that is implicitly acknowledged by the fact that we are applying the codecision procedure, it does seem logical to grant the Member States a transitional period. The Member States also need time to adjust to new rules. We have therefore tabled an amendment on behalf of the Group and would ask our colleagues in the House and the Commission as well to support this amendment. A second question to the Commission concerns the amendments by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs regarding VAT as a basis for calculating the third source of own resources. I should have liked to hear the Commissioner confirm whether the Commission is indeed drawing up a proposal to amend Article 8 of the ESA 95 Regulation to the effect that all the Member States will, in the future, have an adequate legal basis to use ESA 95 for the calculation of the third source of own resources, that is to say, VAT. I should like a reply from the Commissioner and also, of course, a response from the Commissioner to our amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Apart from Amendment No 76, which was an error, since I intended to vote in favour, the rest of my votes can be explained by means of the following fictional situation: Supposed draft environmental directive: 'European Parliament and Council Directive establishing the obligation to maintain, during winter, a temperature of no less than eighteen degrees centigrade in the streets, squares and parks of the cities of Europe '. Guidelines of the Directive: a) each city shall provide the means, in terms of energy and technology, sufficient for this objective to be achieved by 2012; b) the full costs shall be passed on to the inhabitants of each city by means of electricity prices. Opinion of an MEP from the north of Europe: 'This Directive would be unfair since, for example, the cost for an inhabitant of Stockholm would be two hundred times greater than the cost for an inhabitant of Naples '. Opinion of an MEP from the south of Europe: 'Nevertheless, this is a question of competitivity and equality of conditions'. (End of fiction). In explaining my vote, I must say that it is positive that there is a Community directive on water, but I believe that environmental dogma will not lead to the construction of Europe, but will lead to legislative caricature. We cannot give equal treatment to countries which suffer from floods and droughts, such as the Mediterranean countries, and countries with northern levels of rainfall. Furthermore, it would show a lack of solidarity to make transfers of water, between different river basins, practically impossible in the future. Once more we must remember that we are undergoing a continental project for political union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, God help us if the conservatives ever run Europe again. I wish to concentrate on two issues which I know Parliament considers to be of the utmost importance, namely the Galileo project and the future of postal services. Having the opportunity to speak in this debate gives me the chance to welcome not only the Council's conclusions on the creation of a single European sky, but its determination to submit proposals on slot allocation at Community airports to Parliament by June. With regard to Galileo it is worth remembering that this programme was actually instigated by the Council in March 1998. This commitment was emphasised by the Cologne Council and Feira when it was stated that strategic decisions had to be taken by December 2000. But then, to be blunt, the Council, no doubt under pressure from finance ministers, got cold feet. I accept that the cost of Galileo is around EUR 3 billion, which means the involvement of the private sector is essential, but the benefits to Europe in both economic and social terms will be immense. We have a commitment from the main European companies in this sector. What we need now is a political commitment from the Member States not only to push ahead with Galileo, but to push ahead in a positive and determined way, working alongside the private sector. Earlier in the day Mr Poettering criticised the Council for not giving a timetable for the liberalisation of postal services. I actually agree with the Council on this and would remind not only Mr Poettering, but also Commissioner Bolkestein, of the position Parliament took at its first reading on postal services a couple of months ago. By an overwhelming majority it voted for a controlled, gradual liberalisation down to 150 000 with no end-date for liberalisation. So when I read in the Stockholm conclusions that the Council wishes to work with Parliament, I welcome this. But I would remind the Council that Parliament's position is clear, unambiguous and has been arrived at with a clear political consensus across political divides. On post Parliament does not have a problem. The Council does. This solution is clear: accept Parliament's position, abandon the extreme policies put forward by Commissioner Bolkestein and I am sure we can have an agreement on the future of postal services within days.

Political group: PSE
A Convention, made up of 62 delegates from the governments of the fifteen Member States and members of European and national parliaments draws up a Charter of Fundamental Rights for over 380 million Europeans. This Charter lags some way behind the European Convention on Human Rights, and behind national conventions or treaties. It is an accurate reflection of the liberal Europe which is being built. On subjects as basic as women’s rights, immigrants’ rights, the right to education, the right to accommodation, the right to employment or a decent wage, this Charter is often inadequate and occasionally retrogressive. Because social rights are fundamental rights for a Europe that respects democratic and social rights and freedoms, we champion the idea of another charter to protect workers, women, foreigners, those excluded from society, national minorities. This Charter should be drawn up by the social movement, not by an inner sanctum of elected representatives. Because we think that the process of European integration warrants a genuine democratic public debate, there can be no political construction of Europe without social rights or democracy. This is why I did not vote in favour of this draft Charter. I shall be voting for an alternative charter by participating in the demonstrations in Biarritz on 13 and 14 October and in Nice on 7 December 2000.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We had no objection to voting in favour of the report (which concerns Portugal), but would like to take this opportunity of pointing out that Greece has been outrageously wronged in the distribution of milk quotas and the Commission should quickly table a proposal righting that wrong by doubling Greece's quota for cow's milk. The production quota of around 700 000 tonnes set for Greece does not even meet domestic demand, which totals over 1 100 000 tonnes and, when it is exceeded, it costs livestock farmers a fortune in co-responsibility levies. At the same time, certain dairy companies are known to have made a killing by raking in huge profits at the expense of livestock farmers – who are forced to supply their milk at ever lower prices – and increasing the price of products to the consumer. Livestock farming in Greece is on death row and Greek consumers are forced to buy imported long-life products because it takes too long to get fresh milk to Greece from the Member States of the EU; and yet Greece has the potential to increase its output to meet the demand for fresh milk. We are calling for a fair distribution of quotas based on population figures, consumer demand and production potential. - Fiori report (A5-0319/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, being a farmer in Lower Austria, and having myself managed for forty-three years – right up to the rending of the Iron Curtain – a farm on the border, it was with great conviction that I voted today for the accession of ten new Member States and for the Brok Report. I know that, for agriculture, enlargement means not only competition, but also opportunity, and that Austrian farmers will take up these challenges, and do so on the basis of the measures taken in the run-up to accession. I have therefore cast my vote in favour of a peaceful, tolerant, and social future for our children and grandchildren.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we Europeans should be clear in our own minds that we are going to be weighed in the balance in the times that lie ahead. The United States of America and world public opinion will be looking to see whether we demonstrate our solidarity and our capacity to act in the face of the new challenges of international terrorism which have just become visible. European effectiveness has hitherto often fallen at the hurdle of national sovereignty. Effective joint action has often been blocked by invoking national sovereignty. Now, national sovereignty is not an objective in itself, and certainly not if it tends to hinder rather than promote the defence of national independence against terrorists and the effective protection of citizens against terrorist attacks. It is for that reason that the future will see us having to develop effective Community instruments and examining whether national sovereignty helps or hinders us in doing so. Solidarity with the United States is a principle invoked on every side, and this is right and proper, as this attack has been not only on the United States but also on our fundamental values, as was intended. That is why it is so perilous for a member of the Commission, namely Mr Nielson, to abandon Europeans' solidarity as a community. His remarks are dangerous because they blur responsibility for the terrorist action, transfer the guilt for it onto the victims, and pour scorn on the solidarity we affirm in the resolution on which we are voting. These remarks, then, must be withdrawn. We can expect Mr Nielson to apologise for them. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that this new tragedy illustrates yet again what we might call the fate of immigrants. A year ago, it was 58 foreigners who were found dead in Dover; the year before, Yaguine and Fodé, two young Guineans, were found dead in the undercarriage of a Sabena plane. It seems to me that this keeps happening and that, faced with these tragedies, we actually only have one policy, which is to lock the door and throw away the key. And, as Bernard-Henri Lévy would say, it seems to me that increasingly people are losing interest in what we might call the suburbs of the world. It would appear, Mr President, that there are two ways of tackling immigration issues today. The first, which is increasingly common, is to want to keep our borders wide open so as to have a source of cheap labour, liable to be ruthlessly exploited; and the other is not to want any immigration at all, which is neither preferable nor desirable. I believe that it is high time, Mr President, that we had some effective legislation, which is rigorous, of course, but simple in terms of form and common to all European countries, which takes account of the needs of both the southern and northern countries. We cannot continue to strip the countries of the south of their intellectual assets whenever we need them, cynically importing brainpower as if it were just another commodity which we need, as it were, to safeguard our pensions, while at the same time speaking the language of repression. This is not about repression or charity; it is dignity which is at stake here. I believe that this is how we should tackle the issue of immigration. On the other hand – and we have seen illustrations of this throughout the afternoon – if we do not take into consideration the fact that today three quarters of the earth's population is living in the most absolute poverty; if today we do not cancel the debt of developing countries and if we do not discipline ourselves to invest in health, education and infrastructure, I am convinced that, once again, we will have failed to learn the lessons of history, as recent as it is. Today, these destitute men and women, who are totally neglected, form a breeding ground for terrorism, a place where terrorism thrives. Fighting terrorism today also means fighting this poverty. Mr President, I have been so bold as to intervene without taking notes because I really do not think that we can continue to treat these people with such great inhumanity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, since that mission to the Côte d'Ivoire by ACP and European Parliament parliamentarians in May 2003 it has become increasingly clear that the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement is a rather imperfect instrument. There remains, as others have said, an extremely worrying reluctance on all sides to work together, to co-exist, to cooperate and to work for reconciliation. That was absolutely clear when we were there and it remains the case. There has to be an end to impunity and, as the Commissioner said, a much clearer determination is essential to achieve demilitarisation, demobilisation and then rehabilitation in that country. Mr Prodi visited Côte d'Ivoire in November and he made serious pledges on these issues. This Parliament would like to see those pledges turned into real and immediate financial assistance as quickly as possible. ECHO still needs more support in order to do its essential work of implementing the accords. This is the key to bringing peace, as is the need to put in place humanitarian assistance, protection for civilians and so on. In the context of African Union and our ACP obligations, Commissioner Nielson suggested an extremely welcome and innovative way in which we can support Africa's own efforts to manage conflict. My understanding is – and I would like clarification on this because it was not clear from what the Council said – that certain Member States want to use the peace facility, which is well worked out, to fund directly sub-regional organisations, apparently without consulting the African Union, or even seeking the endorsement of the African Union. For me this is an incredible proposal and one I would like to hear explained this morning. Would the Council agree that the European Union must give sustainable long-term support to the continental peace efforts that have been made and give assistance to the architecture which has been put in place to build security on the continent by the African Union? Does the Council believe that the Member States would agree to support the declared wish of all African Heads of State that finance be managed under the African Union's authority and in no other way? I would appreciate some clarification as to where we are at the moment on the extremely important proposal for which Commissioner Nielson was responsible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to return to the subject of the annual legislative programme, after that digression on the European budget. I should like just to address one particular subject, which is the issue of what has happened to the initiatives that Parliament took under Article 192 of the EC Treaty. As Mr Prodi knows, this new article added to the Treaty by the Maastricht Treaty gave Parliament the right to request the Commission to submit legislative proposals. The last Parliament exercised this new responsibility on six occasions, but only once did it lead to a legislative proposal being brought forward by the Commission in response to our request, namely the proposals originating in the report of my colleague, Mr Rothley, on insurance for people using their vehicles in other Member States. That is a very good example, but what happened to the other five? It seems that the Commission has not responded. There is no obligation on the Commission to respond, but we would expect the Commission, in a spirit of cooperation with Parliament, to look at these proposals carefully and to respond in most cases. One out of six is simply not good enough. We now have an Intergovernmental Conference looking at the Treaties again. Following the addition of this article to the Treaty at Maastricht we did not press the Amsterdam IGC to give Parliament a full right of initiative which would enable us to submit a proposal to the Council without going through the Commission. We were happy with the compromise that Article 192 represented, but if this compromise is felt not to be working, and if it is not seen to be satisfactory from Parliament's point of view, there will inevitably be pressure for the Treaty to be amended to give Parliament a full right of initiative, something the Commission does not want because it sets great store by its monopoly of the right of initiative. I say to the Commission, if you do not want that article to be amended further then you must take your responsibilities under the existing article more seriously. I would urge the Commission in future, when Parliament makes a legislative proposal in this way, to take it up, at least in the majority of cases if not in all of them.

Political group: PSE