GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, concerning this directive I would basically like to say that it pursues the objectives firstly of responding to the rapid growth in electronic means of payment, secondly of creating a common legal basis for these and, thirdly, of providing a guarantee of liquidity ensuring security and protection for consumers. We therefore welcome the directive. We also welcome the fact that the non-banking sector will be subjected in this regard to a degree of banking supervision and that a minimum reserve requirement will be stipulated. We also welcome the fact that there are no exemptions to the change-back obligation. The rapporteur has already indicated in her speech that, in spite of this basic affirmation of the direction and necessity of this directive, there were several motions for amendment and also several areas of discussion which went even further. Although the rapporteur belongs to my Group and I greatly value her commitment, I can nevertheless refute one thing for those delegates who have voiced objections and raised questions, namely the assertion that all the motions for amendment emanate from the European Central Bank. The European Central Bank cannot put forward amendments here, and it is a slight on all delegates who have submitted amendments to say that they have raised these issues and put forward these amendments (which, incidentally, were all adopted unanimously in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs) on behalf of third parties, and not on the basis of their own judgement and responsibility, simply because the report has been adopted unanimously together with the amendments. What are we talking about here? These objections and questions, which do not run counter to the basic affirmation, concern four areas, basically relating to the question of whether the exemption provisions in Article 8 are too extensive and need to be more limited. They indeed need to be more limited, and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken up this issue, because the issue is in the area of what consequences these comprehensive exemption provisions will have for monitoring currency holdings. What effects will these comprehensive exemption provisions have on currency stability? Under certain circumstances, could the extensive nature of these exemption provisions not lead to circumventions, thus making the exception the rule? This matter of monitoring currency holdings and stability and the matter of whether the exception would not thus become the rule have lead to the motions for amendment. Should the recommendation be adopted here without any amendments, I would ask that the Commission and the Council make use of what is in the directive and submit to Parliament a brief report on the consequences of the directives with any amendments which might be necessary. We will monitor this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Langen, ladies and gentlemen, as our rapporteur mentioned, we are coming to the end of a long and difficult process of conciliation with the Council on the ALTENER programme. Mr Langen mentioned that the implementation budget proposed by the Council was initially FF 74 million, whereas the Commission proposed 81.1 million, a figure which the European Parliament supported. An initial conciliation meeting was not successful, because the Council would not at that time accept an increase of EUR 1.9 million. We could not agree with a proposal like this, which challenged the authority of the European Parliament. A second round of conciliation achieved an increase of EUR 1.1 million in order to reach this compromise figure of 77 million. In spite of an increase of 3 million in relation to the initial proposal, personally, once again I deplore the fact that the funds allocated do not match up to the ambitions expressed and that the concern to save money displayed by the Council in this situation is in rude contrast to its declarations in favour of the safety of the energy supply, job creation and environmental protection, challenges that are just as significant which we must face up to. In fact, renewable energies unquestionably provide a way of achieving these objectives. However, in spite of the reservations I am expressing on the paucity of the financial allocation, I personally support the compromise, by virtue of the programme’s content, to which the European Parliament made an active contribution as, following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, this sector become subject to codecision. It is practically certain that, with the raft of proposed measures and actions, it should be possible to approach the objective of a 12% renewable energy share by 2010, doubling the current rate, as long as the appropriations including state appropriations are made available. This programme, together with the SAVE II programme, integrating the environmental aspect into energy policy, establishes a foundation for a real Community strategy to achieve clean energy while reducing our dependence. And, in conclusion, Mr President, let me also insist upon the fact that, in addition to the measures proposed, there are also legislative measures and, most especially, adequate budget allocations to back up these political initiatives. And I shall end, of course, by congratulating Mr Langen, our rapporteur, on his work, as well as all the members of the committee and of the Conciliation Committee.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on an excellent report. I also welcome the Commission's proposal which is an important guideline for the EU and the Member States for understanding and applying the precautionary principle. The proposal is of course, from an international point of view, an invaluable tool for decision-making in cases where there is uncertainty regarding risks, products or manufacturing methods. I fully share the Commission’s position when it defines the precautionary principle as a general principle with unlimited scope. Just like many MEPs, I'm sure, I was pleasantly surprised at the Council's resolution from the European Council meeting in Nice which states that the precautionary principle should be applied as quickly as possible after harmful effects to health and the environment have been established and if reliable conclusions concerning the level of risk cannot be reached on the basis of a preliminary scientific investigation based on the information available. This is very far-reaching and, of course, very good. I would also like to appeal to everybody here, in anticipation of tomorrow's vote, not to weaken the committee's and the rapporteur's text by adopting the amendments proposed by the EDD and the PPE. Instead, we ought to try to strengthen the text further to show that we are at least as progressive as the Council. Amendment No 9 is very important. This proposes that a reversed burden of proof be applied regarding products with no prior approval, that is to say that producers must prove that the product is safe and not transfer the risks and the cost to consumers. It is of course also important to increase the legal weight with the aim of making the precautionary principle an international standard. This is dealt with in Amendment No 5 from the Group of the .

Political group: Verts-ALE
I accept that the presidency views this as a serious problem. However, all of us, and the EU institutions in particular, need to recognise that the plutonium being sent across the seas to Japan from both Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in France is directly usable in nuclear explosive devices. If terrorists were to get hold of this material we would be facing devastation. We have already had the example of 11 September. This trade undermines all attempts to halt proliferation, and I would draw the presidency's attention to a statement made in Washington by President George W. Bush on February 11, when he said that reprocessing is unnecessary for civil nuclear energy programmes. The tenor of his remarks is to condemn reprocessing as a sinister activity. We need to get a grip on proliferation, and in this context the trade in nuclear technology undertaken by the EU is similar to the trade in heroin in that it is equally lethal. I urge the presidency to take the lead in strengthening the European Union's non-proliferation credentials by pressing the UK and France to stop this commerce in plutonium, which was not named after Pluto the God of the Underworld for nothing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The ‘replacement’ of NATO forces with a military force under the ESDP is being presented as the first military operation to have been undertaken under this EU policy, a policy to which we are opposed. This is a military operation that has been executed following the EU/NATO declaration on the ESDP of 16 December 2002, which welcomes ‘the strategic partnership established between the European Union and NATO in crisis management, founded on our shared values, the indivisibility of our security and our determination to tackle the challenges of the new Century’. This is a military force, albeit a ‘symbolic’ one, which can call on the resources and capabilities of NATO and is headed by the Deputy Supreme Commander of this organisation in Europe – a military operation under the ESDP as the European pillar of NATO. This is an attempt to pursue an illegal and illegitimate NATO operation which is consistent with the interference and imperialist aggression inflicted on the Balkans. It is therefore an initial military operation that will open the way to others, with the ‘replacement’ of NATO forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina being suggested as the next. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is right that the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project, which has been planned over several years, is subject to a European Parliament urgency procedure today, both because it is reported that the World Bank may be on the verge of making its decision and because of deep concerns at reports of harassment and intimidation against the project's opponents. I have met with the Chad Government representatives who, contrary to claims of those on the other side of the Chamber, say they have not threatened to withdraw their invitation to Parliament's mission to Chad because we are holding this debate. Indeed, they claim that there is now observance of democracy, human rights and transparency in relation to this project. But if that is so, why do we continue to receive reports of consultation at gunpoint? Why is one German development NGO threatening to pull out because of threats and attacks by the Chadian military? Why, on 4 January, did one expatriate resident in N'Djamena find her home attacked by Chadian soldiers? If the oil pipeline project is transparent, why do independent studies question its efficacy so fundamentally? For instance, Professor Rosenblum of Harvard questions the impact on poverty; Professor Downing of the University of Arizona concludes there is a failure to meet the World Bank indigenous peoples' guidelines; and the University of Warwick from my own country considers there will be a potential loss to national income from the project if potential spills and leaks are taken into account. It is right that the European Parliament should express its concern about a World Bank which is still pursuing the old policies of privatisation, major infrastructure projects and mass agricultural exports which have become so discredited. As for the oil companies themselves, why do they need to see the environmental protection requirements lifted, development controls waived and the unfettered right of action in the event of civil emergency which will allegedly give them ‘carte blanche to act as a paramilitary power’? Can the European Investment Bank really justify giving EUR 8 million direct to Exxon in these circumstances? We do not want to see another Ogoniland in Africa.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I listened with interest to the Commissioner's reply about the need to apply the laws of the single market. I wonder whether he can say whether he considers his reply to be compatible with the failure by the Commission to take the French Government to the European Court of Justice on the application of France's Loi et Vin, which effectively prevents single market rules applying to the sale of alcohol products in France? Can we now expect the European Commission to take action against the French Republic before the European Court of Justice?

Political group: PPE-DE
The proposal on civil aviation security does not address so-called terrorism. The fight against terrorism is simply being used as an excuse to create a climate of mass fear in order to smooth the way for the anti-democratic, anti-grass roots policies being promoted. At the same time, and with the same excuse, a first class opportunity for speculation has arisen as a result of the ‘safety’ measures being recommended or imposed in the form of exorbitantly expensive equipment or services, the cost of which is being passed on to users/passengers. In addition, an attempt at ‘internationalisation’ is being made by forcing ‘anti-democratic measures’ on all countries, which will be subject to inspection by ‘inspectors’ whose mission has deliberately been left vague rather than being clearly defined. It is no accident that the proposal lays claim to global validity – on the pretext of transnational agreements between Member States of the European Union and other countries – given that its purpose is to make controls as broad as possible and cut grass-roots freedoms as far back as possible. A typical example is the new law on air traffic safety signed by President Bush on 19 November, requiring foreign airlines to submit full details of passengers bound for the USA to the relevant American authorities directly. The USA are asking the airlines of numerous countries to submit advance lists of all passengers detailing their full name, date and place of birth, passport number and place of issue, visa or green card number and any other information deemed necessary to identify possible terrorists. At the same time, they warn that, if they fail to comply, as of Thursday 29 November, passengers arriving on these airlines will undergo exceptionally stringent checks by the American authorities and their luggage will be searched thoroughly, all of which may take several hours. This is a bitter taste of the ‘big brother’ policy and of the restriction and abolition of the freedom of movement and rights of citizens in a climate of ‘mass fear’, the aims of which have nothing to do with safety. In our view, the measures already taken more than suffice and no further measures are required. Terrorism has social roots and therefore needs a social response. Adopting more and more suppressive and, basically, ineffectual measures, which have nothing to do with combating terrorism, is mere cunning.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in Europe, we have been working on the liberalisation of the energy market for some 15 years now. And directives in this respect were adopted as early as 1994 and 1995, but there are still Member States that keep their markets sealed from new suppliers, France naturally taking the crown, despite the fact that the Sun King has been long dead and buried. Transparent and non-discriminatory access to networks is necessary to break monopolies. In order to achieve this, it is sometimes necessary to take measures that do not appear liberal, such as prescribing fixed rates for transmissions for all users and producers, for this is absolutely vital to grant newcomers access to the market. I therefore hope that the Council in Barcelona will at long last take decisive action and will take liberalisation seriously, for it already agreed in Lisbon that Europe should become the world’s most dynamic, competitive and knowledge-based economy. In order for this to happen, the liberalisation of energy is vital.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been intending to discuss the problem of workplace harassment here in the European Parliament for some time. The debate has been a long time coming, for the question which has always arisen is this: is this House the right forum for this debate? Some members of my group reject the report because they believe that this is not a European issue. The majority will follow my recommendation and vote for the report, because it is indeed a Europe-wide issue and problem. Bullying exists in every country of the European Union, in all sectors, and even in the EU institutions themselves. It is a difficult issue. It is very embarrassing for many people, and a large number of cases go unreported because no one really wants to talk about it. Victims feel ashamed, exploited and stressed. Their distress often has a high cost, not only in terms of their own mental and physical health, but also economically: sick leave, medical and treatment expenses, a high staff turnover, lower productivity, a loss of quality and image for the company or institution, and therefore also a decline in the number of customers. Bullying causes all these problems. The dignity of every individual should not be upheld solely on paper and in the Basic Law, but also in our social relations. A little more respect and fairness and a little less egotism would probably make our debate about harassment unnecessary. European legislation is unsuitable as a means to address the causes of bullying and is likely to be ineffective. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur for his cooperation and for including my ideas in his report. Measures to tackle bullying should focus primarily on the Member State and actively include the social partners. It is in companies' own interests to ensure that these incidents do not occur within their organisations. Due to the difficulties in arriving at a precise definition, the Commission will not find it easy to draft its proposed Green Paper. However, there are a few models of good practice in tackling bullying here in the European Union, and I believe that everyone should learn from each other. Tasks must be assigned effectively to the most appropriate levels; this will also increase the desire to take action and ensure that this difficult issue is taken seriously.

Political group: PPE-DE
I too want to congratulate Mrs Attwooll and say that I agree with most of what she said. I regard it as a weakness in the proposal that reporting is not mandatory in all Member States. I cannot understand the proposal to make a regulation out of which it is possible for some Member States to slip without any penalty and I cannot understand either that within a European Union where we are only 50% self-sufficient in fish for our domestic needs that there is any highly sensitive information, that by making the reports that are necessary that the national interest or the regional interest of some states or fishing communities is going to be put at risk. In view of the coming review of the policy in 2002 it is important that we have all possible information, economic as well as biological. In the past somebody said to me I have been defending the decisions the Commission makes. It is not very easy in coastal areas anywhere in the Union to defend the European Union in the whole area of fisheries, but I have been defending them on the grounds that decisions are made on properly based scientific knowledge. I am informed when I take a closer look that the information is in fact quite higgledy-piggledy with bits coming from here and there and no clear, proper economic and biological picture emerging. If we do not have this picture then it will not be possible to make reasonable decisions in two years’ time about the future of the policy. It is not easy, indeed I could speak for everybody in my constituency that live in the coastal areas too and say that they are agreed on one thing, that the European Union is the source of all their problems and all their difficulties. Well, I do not agree with them but I think if we do not base our information and our decisions on good scientific information, and if there is not an equal obligation on everyone to give it, then we will have bad decisions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of our discussion of these reports on human rights inside and outside the European Union, the time is therefore right to consider the cross-influences between the ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’. Clearly, the Union’s best tool for disseminating its human rights model is the experience of migrants. Yet our greatest failings in human rights involve these very people. I can give you two examples of this. Firstly, there is cause for concern about the shape being taken by the readmission agreements which directly threaten fundamental rights such as the right of asylum or the right to live as a family. The Union has confirmed its attachment to the Geneva and Dublin Conventions by establishing the anti-deportation principle. It is therefore unacceptable that the readmission agreements can allow a third country national to be returned to his or her country when we know that this country more often than not does not guarantee respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. It is just as unacceptable to see families torn apart with children sometimes being left alone following the expulsion of their parents who have no right of residence, even though some have lived and worked in Europe for nearly ten years. What image of human rights do you think they will take back to their countries given their experiences of questionable living conditions, humiliating body searches, insults, endless forms and interrogations in police stations and detention centres? After all this, we then just end up sending them back to countries which they are legitimately seeking to leave, often for political and economic as well as humanitarian reasons. These readmission agreements are dangerous for asylum-seekers, for the dissemination of human rights throughout the world and for the international stature of the European Union. If the Union wants to be taken seriously on the issue of respect for human rights, it must immediately stop these expulsions. It must legalise the situation of all these men and women who are deprived of all rights, including the right to live as a family and the right of free movement, and who are currently kept in a situation of official illegality. Another flagrant attack on human rights concerns foreigners and citizenship. How can we expect third country nationals to integrate and their children to respect the law and to believe in the reality of democratic rights when they are not allowed to exercise these rights? At a time when the Union is considering the definition of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, why are we creating second-class citizens? This really is a case of fundamental rights. How can we allow some people to be excluded? How can they believe in the reality of the Declaration of Human Rights? On human rights, the Union could take pride in being the first in history to define citizenship according to a principle of residence instead of establishing discrimination based on nationality.

Political group: Verts-ALE