GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I welcome the fact that the subject of a tax on international movements of capital has, at last, been tabled before the European Parliament for discussion and decision. It was an initiative adopted by our Group, the Group of the , which was then supported by other Groups. One only has to think that transactions on the world stock markets total USD 1 800 billion a day and that the annual trade in goods and services is in the order of USD 6 000 billion, i.e. four days’ speculation on the stock exchange, in order to realise just how serious the problem is. President Delors was right when he likened the world economy to a casino and the fact that the parliaments of Finland and Canada and UNCTAD are in favour of a capital tax is a positive sign. The Commission needs to propose a Tobin type tax on short-term movements of speculative capital and the Portuguese and French Presidencies need to make this issue one of their priorities. A low but graduated tax of this type must be configured so that it does not cause negative repercussions on the real economy, i.e. trade and investment, and so that it allows resources to be safeguarded for education, the environment and development. This measure should be the first step towards regulatory and fiscal measures to deal with the phenomenon of massive international speculation. I decided to vote in favour of the joint motion for a resolution and I am sorry that the and Liberals blocked it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I was delighted to find this topic on the agenda today. I would like to thank Mrs Jackson for raising the question. Although you refer to three specific EU directives, I would point out that what we are talking about here is a widespread problem with the transposition of EU legislation in the Member States. If you start from the principle that directives and regulations are adopted by the Council and Parliament in the EU, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the Council – which does, after all, use these directives – will transpose them in the Member States accordingly. But what do we see happening? Two camps are forming. On one side there is the European Union, which seeks to blame the Member States for shortcomings. On the other side, there are the Member States, which are more than willing to offload their problems onto the oh-so-distant Europe, forgetting in the process that they are part of Europe themselves, and the Commission is piggy-in-the-middle. Commissioner, you have gone to great lengths to try and ensure that these laws are transposed in the European Union in a purposeful manner. But it really is not that simple and, of course, we have criticised your methods sometimes. I can understand to an extent, why you took the line you did. There are various reasons as to why countries have trouble transposing this legislation. In my opinion, one of the reasons in the case of the nitrates directive is the failure to observe scientific findings, because one thing is for sure, it is not possible to reduce nitrate levels as rapidly as we demand. Nature simply will not allow it. However, in the case of the habitats directive, Parliament highlighted the shortcomings quite clearly last year, namely that the directive was complicated and unclear in parts and so it cannot be transposed in the Member States. When we were in Toulouse, we saw how local people are trying to transpose it. But basically, they do not know what is going on. They do not know where the boundaries are, or how to apply them properly. These are shortcomings that must be reviewed as a matter of priority. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that the directives are less utopian and far more realistic in nature. Mrs Jackson's question actually contains all the points we need to address and there is nothing more to add to it. Speedier sanctions and careful drafting of laws will enable us to solve this problem. However, I would just like to point out that something needs to change in the Member States too, because the Environment Ministers are, no doubt, sometimes too cowardly to promote the initiatives they adopt here, in their own countries, if this could lead to conflict.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the report by my colleague, Mrs Stihler, which approves and improves the Commission proposal to deal with the serious decline in cod stocks in Community waters as identified by the ICES scientific report. The report accepts that urgent conservation measures are required but that these must be balanced with actions to protect the economic and social interests of fisherman and ancillary workers. Any ban on cod fishing should not be turned into a general ban on white fishing. While it is important that significant numbers of cod are not caught as a by-product of other white fishing, selectivity must be applied to areas excluded from general fishing in order to allow fishermen to catch species which are not in danger.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Belder for his outstanding work on this report. It is an extremely comprehensive document that involved a lot of research. The task of the shadow rapporteurs has been relatively easy because we have agreed with a lot of the content and we have been looking for ways to further improve the direction of his text. I want to pick up a few specific points in relation to issues that he has kindly incorporated in the final report. Firstly, it is correct to emphasise, as he has done, the remarkable opportunities offered to disabled people in society. The digital revolution will improve the quality of their lives and access to services. That is something we need to try to exploit together in the most effective way possible. Those of us who have sat with someone who is partially sighted and seen them use a website realise that there should be better design, and it would not cost anything. It is a question of education, training and best practice. That is something the Commission is working on, but we need to emphasise it. It is something where public authorities can demonstrate best practice and set a lead for others. As an integral part of that, it is crucial to ensure that we have the instruments in place to benchmark and give access ratings to websites, because public comparison and encouragement of best practice will stimulate everybody to move forward. That is something the Commission is also working on, but we are right to emphasise that in our report. That, of course, links in to the question of commercial services. The users' groups I have talked to – in the United Kingdom in particular – have emphasised the importance of encouraging commercial operators and commercial providers of services to make their websites user-friendly for disabled people. Those crucial commercial services – such as banks, home-shopping services, access to transport – being able to order transport and look at timetables – need to be made accessible to disabled users. They will really help them engage with this new revolution. Having those benchmarks and star ratings will encourage commercial firms to pick them up and to make their websites more accessible which will really deliver the sorts of benefits we are looking for. I am keen to encourage both of those aspects, but overall this report is extremely worthwhile. We will not support all the amendments on this side, but that is more an aspect of detail. The overall thrust of this report is very commendable and I encourage the House to give it its full support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I do not want to prolong this but I have a horrible suspicion that the Commissioner is not going to come to Northern Ireland but perhaps to another part of the island of 'Ireland' that has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If he wants to come to Northern Ireland to visit fishermen I would be happy to go with him. But please do not give me the type of platonic responses you have just given. I will not accept that. If you want to defend that to the fishermen you can do so, but I will not be part of it. Please do not in any way get involved in that type of situation. Fishing is something on which we all cooperate, in both the north and south of the island. Do not try to make it a political point of view.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to add my voice to the comments of Mrs Villiers regarding the presence of Commissioner Bolkestein and I believe it is fortunate that, in a debate as brief as this one, we have the Commissioner present so that he can reply to us almost immediately. I am not speaking as a member of the Committee on Economic Affairs but as a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and I would like to express my agreement with the comments by Mr Cox, Mr Goebbels and Mr Herzog. In short, we have a legislative problem. We all agree that Community legislation is very complicated, very ornate and very complex, but the reason why Community legislation is so complicated and ornate is the intergovernmental procedure which is used to adopt regulations and the lack of a genuine Community legislative body which has the capacity to adopt clear regulations. Therefore, while we agree basically with Mr Lamfalussy and the committee of experts, and with the need for clear and rapid Community legislation, we cannot agree with the solution they propose because that would mean more committees and more of the famous comitology procedure. In this respect I must remind you of a famous saying that ‘a camel is a horse drawn by a committee’, with many humps, and Community legislation is camel-like. The comitology procedure currently proposed by the Lamfalussy report would create many more camels and would not create satisfactory legislation. This type of proposal and the continued insistence on comitology is not therefore the solution. The solution lies in creating a clear legislative procedure which allows Parliament to effectively exercise its powers. Otherwise we would simply be allowing the governments to continue playing amongst themselves and drawing Community legislative camels.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is the second time that Mr Poettering, who has been absent from the Conference of Presidents more often than I have, has reproached me for not being there on Thursday. I was in Budapest, I know, but it has to be said that Mr Poettering was the only Group Chairman present. The others were replaced. And the Socialist Group was duly and worthily represented. There is therefore no place for this sort of argument. Secondly, if this procedure exists at the moment it is because Parliament has sovereignty when it comes to deciding its agenda and in my speech I referred to information and events that have arisen since Thursday. Since I do not have the gift of prophecy that Mr Poettering appears to have, I cannot know on a Thursday what is going to happen on the following Sunday and therefore I think it makes sense that Parliament should reflect and vote when the time comes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply. You are right, of course: it is indeed the Member States that are primarily responsible here. As a member of the board of the European Senior Citizens Union (ESCU), I have focussed very intensively on these issues recently, and it has emerged – for our organisation now has members in twenty European states – that there is a growing debate in all the European countries about the situation in homes for the elderly. Our question is this: would it not be possible to produce some kind of recommendation on how contracts should be concluded with these homes? We are aware of homes where residents are very often treated with very little respect, are even confined to cots against their will, are prevented from going out, are served their evening meal so early that they very soon feel hungry again but have no chance of getting anything to eat after 8 or 9 p.m., and where if they soil themselves with or without an incontinence pad, they are often left to lie in their own filth for hours at a time, or are treated in an unfriendly manner by staff, are abused verbally and even subjected to violence. I believe that guidelines for contracts for homes are essential.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has just come to our attention that the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament has decided by a large majority to award the Sakharov Prize to Xanana Gusmão. For this reason, personally, and on behalf of the European Socialist Party... (Applause) I would like to say how pleased we are with this action which pays tribute to Xanana Gusmão as a citizen, but above all, to the resistance, the tenacity, the courage and the determination of the people of East Timor. In our opinion, this award is a good incentive for all the men and women who, in other regions throughout the world, are fighting for the establishment of peace, and in the defence of human rights, liberty and democracy. We Socialists think that awarding this prize to Xanana Gusmão honours the spirit of the creation of the Sakharov Prize and also honours the European Parliament. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Treaty of Amsterdam made one thing clear: there is no way of getting past a common asylum and immigration policy. The initiatives of the European Union on reuniting families, the anti-discrimination package, temporary protection for war refugees and, at long last, the attempt to harmonise asylum law make this very clear. Now, with the Schmitt report – for which, by the way, I thank you in my capacity as coordinator of the – we have the first clear stand by the European Parliament, even if a number of sensible proposed amendments – our proposals, which are also recommended by the UNHCR – have been rejected. Mr Pirker, I do not see a problem with this – you can reject them again tomorrow. One way or another, we shall be voting in favour of Mr Schmitt’s report. These are the usual parliamentary rules of play and with them we can all live happily under one roof – that is my assumption. Tempus fugit! We must implement the Treaty of Amsterdam by the end of 2004. There are difficulties at hand though. The national states are often not prepared as yet to support European rules. But this should not divert us from our purpose. Mr Schmitt’s report goes in the right direction and calls on the Commission to take specific steps by proposing legislation. I hope that we will be able to persuade the Member States of the merits of our approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, enlargement is the most important European project of our time. I would thank the Commission for its determined efforts. Now comes the difficult part, however. Now, it is a question of keeping the impetus going. The first wave of enlargement must be completed in one and a half year’s time in Copenhagen in December 2002. That is the Commission’s objective, and we shall hold them to it. I would call upon the next countries to hold the presidency to maintain very close contact with the candidate countries and to help by removing obstacles from the path in time. However, it is not only, of course, the candidate countries which must adapt to us. We too have to adapt. An EU of 27 Member States must learn to concentrate its forces upon the major and cross-border tasks. That is not, of course, what we are doing at present. A year ago here in Parliament, you said yourself, Mr President of the Commission, that the European Union should be freed from all the, and I quote, “things that are absolutely ridiculous” which the Council of Ministers and Parliament have got you administering. You repeated those words several times, and you are right. Now is the time to do something about it. Let us have a slimmer, but at the same time stronger, EU. Let us stop trying to keep far too many balls in the air. I propose that you appoint a bold Commissioner to the task of combating trivial extra tasks and petty regulations, and I propose that the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of the Parliaments of the European Union, COSAC, be given the ability to stop legislation that violates the subsidiarity principle. In return, the Commission must be strong so that the European Union is energetic in the other areas.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I should first like to thank Mr Bautista Ojeda for his excellent report. I am sure he knows he can rely on total support from my group. It would be hard to name an issue preceded by more Parliamentary initiatives during the last twelve years. The House has witnessed the same debate time and again during this period. The principles are unchanged, but the situation on the ground has worsened. Turkish economic policy recently caused an artificial fall in the price of hazelnuts and other agricultural products in response to internal pressures. This is not a new problem, but it escalated because the Commission failed to tackle it in its proposals. I do not believe the Commission’s suggestion, namely transferring the nuts problem to rural development, is realistic. This might have been said in the Committee on Agriculture. A problem related to the market should be dealt with using the appropriate tools. It is unwise to keep resorting to the second pillar to solve all our difficulties. For the last twelve years, the House has been advocating an honourable solution for this sector of production which is experiencing very specific problems. The Commission’s response has been simply to grant extensions to a regime that does not deal with the problems the sector needs to overcome. The permanent solution put forward by the House on a number of occasions has been ignored. One might well wonder whether sometimes the nub of the problem is not in fact the Commission’s lack of resolve when it comes to proposing effective measures to deal with the difficulties facing the nuts sector, rather than the difficulties themselves. For my part, Commissioner, I hope that is not so on this occasion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In May 2000, the European Union and its Member States signed the Cartagena Protocol on the prevention of biotechnological risks in the fields of the safe transfer, handling and use of GMOs. This European Commission proposal for a regulation is extremely important because it boosts the practical implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in the European Union, thereby preventing situations of distortion of competition that could arise if these rules were defined at national level. The rapporteur has improved the proposal for a regulation, and his proposal to ban GMO exports that have not been authorised in the European Union itself warrants particular applause.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the decision to extend the expiry date of the MAGP-IV until the end of next year, so as to include the results of the negotiations on the reform of the common fisheries policy, must not be used to undermine the interests of the countries that have so far met and even exceeded the reductions laid down in the MAGP, such as Portugal, whilst there are other Member States have not only failed to meet any of their targets but have even increased their fishing capacities. Equally, it is incorrect – as the rapporteur and various other Members have stated – to attempt to table amendments on the expiry date of the MAGP-IV that would have a detrimental effect on maritime safety, on the quality of life and safety of crews, on the value and quality of catches and on health and hygiene conditions. The Commissioner must, therefore, review the position he expresses in the proposals submitted to the European Parliament and accept most of the positions put forward by Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I would like to congratulate Mr von Wogau, on behalf of the and on my own behalf, and offer our support for his report on an issue which, although it is very important – the broad economic policy guidelines – is nevertheless a substitute for what we would like to see. We have always argued that, in the Europe of the euro, there should be a genuine and well-defined leadership for economic and monetary policy. It is well known that, at the moment, it is produced by means of negotiations between ECOFIN and the Commission, with the intervention of Parliament. The broad guidelines are clearly a fundamental element, but – I repeat – it is still in our view a substitute for what should be a genuine economic and monetary policy at European Union level with the opportunity to act in a more direct manner. Of the different aspects dealt with in Mr von Wogau’s report, I would like to highlight three, which, from our liberal perspective, are particularly important. The first is to push ahead with the process of liberalisation in sectors such as telecommunications, postal services, railways, etc., sectors which still hinder the possibility of achieving higher levels of competitiveness and a single market which functions better. This process would also, as Mr Bolkestein correctly pointed out, lead to better functioning of the single market and the disappearance of barriers within it. This better functioning – as Parliament approved in my report on structural reforms and liberalisation – would in particular guarantee a profound reform of the labour markets, an essential element, firstly, in better adapting to the economic and social needs of European society and, secondly, in achieving what we need, that is, higher levels of productivity in order to be competitive on an international level.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, progress towards stability in Macedonia is a real example of how cooperation between NATO, the EU and the US can have very beneficial effects. Commissioner Patten is absolutely right to say that the European Union has got its act together to a considerable extent in the Balkans. I also congratulate the coalition government in place since last September. Let us hope that Macedonia has indeed turned a corner and that the Ohrid Agreement will be fully implemented. A military presence is still necessary to deliver a secure atmosphere and the EU mission can and should carry out tasks such as weapons collection and training. For the EU to undertake its first military operation is a truly significant and historic milestone. Mr Brok is quite right to insist that it should not happen without consultation with the European Parliament. The fact that the finalisation of the details has been held up by wrangling over intelligence sharing between NATO and the EU is said to be purely a technical issue. It is illustrative of the interdependence between the two and what we have at stake in making this agreement work. It is right for the EU to take over from NATO and a convincing demonstration that we are serious about playing a larger security role. The internal problems facing Macedonia are not limited to military security threats, there are many policing challenges and the cancer of corruption and criminality, often violent criminality, is undermining the state. There are murky links between organised criminals and political extremists and in a neighbouring country, as we have just heard, the murder of Prime Minister Djindjic may be evidence of those links. There can be no economic progress or investment while lawlessness is rife. The Prime Minister of Macedonia wondered who would invest, build and hire new people in a country with constant shootings, a country in one third of whose territory travel after dark is not recommended. He is absolutely right: there is a very close link between security and the growth of the economy. I would like to mention again the problem of the name. The President-in-Office and the Commissioner use the formulation of FYROM – the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia. I refuse to do that. I wish these negotiations over the name could get somewhere – they seem to drag on. Finally, I would like to urge those Member States that have not yet ratified the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, to get on with it. This would send a very good signal to Macedonia.

Political group: ELDR