GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to restrict my remarks to Mr Wuermeling's report on consumer credit. This is his second attempt to reach a compromise on the Consumer Credit Directive, Parliament having opposed many aspects of the proposed directive and referred it back to committee in November 2003. This directive aims to harmonise laws, regulations and administrative procedures of the Member States concerning agreements covering credit granted to consumers and surety agreements entered into by consumers. Having expressed my opposition to many aspects previously, I will be happy to support Mr Wuermeling's report provided the amendments on so-called 'responsible lending', the compulsory use of credit reference databases and the exemption for mortgages are all adopted, and provided the so-called credit union amendments, 4 and 61, are supported by this House. The Credit Union movement in Ireland and the UK is unique. Most financial institutions that lend money are in business to maximise profits. Credit unions are different as they are owned and run by their members. Each member on their boards and principal committees is a volunteer – there are 15 000 of them in my own country – as are the majority of their staff, except in the larger credit unions which have up to 2000 paid employees. They are restricted from operating outside their local geographic area and provide mainly small amounts of credit for low-income members and for those in financial difficulty. Through the Money Advice and Budgeting Service known as MABS in Ireland, they provide access to credit for individuals who are often seriously in debt and otherwise prey to illegal money lenders providing loans at impossibly high interest rates. In my country, where we have less than four million inhabitants, there are 2.5 million members of credit unions with savings in excess of EUR 9 billion. 37% of loans issued by the credit unions are for EUR 750 or less. The average loan is EUR 7000. A total of EUR 5 billion is out on loans at the moment. Effective leadership for all our credit unions on the island of Ireland is provided by the Irish League of Credit Unions. In conclusion, harmonisation is needed and welcomed to the extent that it respects the different range of financial products and the cultural differences in financial services in each Member State. We need a balance here in protecting the consumer from the lender and the lender from the consumer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that we have today shown such unanimity with regard to the Roth-Berendt Report. I hope that our great strength of conviction will also turn out to have had an effect on the Commission. I am in favour both of banning testing on animals and the marketing of the products tested. I believe that the transitional periods have been extended too far. It is for this reason that I would have preferred even shorter transitional periods. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this sort of trade in animals is going on, and only a couple of days ago, in the South Tyrol, the part of Upper Italy that I come from, a transaction of this kind was thwarted. We were able to block the convoy and rescue the animals. We know that that is not the solution. The solution is regulation by the law. I hope that we will put such legislation into effect as soon as possible. Our contribution to it has now been made.

Political group: PPE-DE
The current European leaders only want to speak with one voice when it comes out of their own mouths. The common foreign and security policy is evidently not important enough to make concessions for it. As long as the renationalisation of foreign policy continues in the European Union, common defence will remain up in the air like a rudderless bomber with bickering pilots. Both the extremely stretched British loyalty to Washington and continuing French anti-Americanism are a poor guide for European policy. We must be absolutely sure to prevent an enlarged Union breaking up into pro and anti-American camps. Good Atlantic relations are of fundamental importance for Europe, for America and also for the rest of the world. If the United States can impose their Pax Americana, this is partly the fault of the current European leaders. As long as they blatantly adhere to what they feel is right and invest too little Europe as a whole in defence, we are condemned to a supporting role on the world stage. The European Union must certainly be capable of acting militarily on its own continent, preferably in a NATO context, but if it must independently too. The telescoping and strengthening of military resources lays a foundation for a common and strong security policy. The development of a European strategic concept with the emphasis on crisis prevention is a splendid objective. Something will only come of it if European leaders speak exclusively with one voice. Otherwise they will do better to remain silent.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to join others in congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Harbour, on his report, which is very complete and which has been negotiated with a creditable willingness to seek consensus. I have tried to cooperate with the fundamental objectives of the report – with which I may say I am in total agreement – with certain amendments because I thought it would be useful to incorporate certain points. The first, in line with what Mr Martin has just said on behalf of the Committee on Industry, is to reject – and this has been done very intelligently by the rapporteur – the equal treatment, undoubtedly hasty on the part of the Commission, of Parliament and the Council with regard to the causes of the delay of certain rules of the internal market. As we say in our country, 'every candlestick should support its candle' and we should not all be judged equally in relation to responsibilities that are different. The second aspect was the need – and Mr Harbour agreed immediately – to incorporate workers’ organisations into the cooperation which were and are laid down in the report between the consumers’ organisations and the employers’ organisations. For those whose political doctrine consists of a social market economy, this involvement by all social elements seems to us to be significant. I would like to take up a statement by the Commissioner: as long as all active sections of European society fail to take on board the idea of the internal market, all imaginable rules and actions will be insufficient to make it a reality. If on the other hand society is mobilised, this objective will be achieved much more easily. The rapporteur has also accepted my request that greater attention be paid to the existing obstacles to the creation of small businesses and the necessary initiatives to overcome them. Because, Mr President, we can go on and on about employment in large companies, but the people who really provide work in the European Union, in really huge quantities, are the small and medium-sized businesses. And we must ensure that they can be incorporated into the internal market without obstacles, as Mr Karas has said. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the progress made thanks to the efforts of Commissioner de Palacio – it is fair to say – on liberalisation, not ‘liberation’ as the Spanish text mistakenly says, in the field of gas, electricity and air transport. I would like to thank Mr Harbour for incorporating these points, as well as the fortunate way he has incorporated the principle elements of my Amendment No 40 into paragraph 33; by the way, Mr President, and for the benefit of the services of this House, I would like to make the observation that this paragraph 33 of the English text does not exist in the Spanish text, and it should also be included in our language. I will therefore vote in favour of this excellent report, on which I congratulate Mr Harbour once again, and I would also like to thank him for his kind words for Mrs Palacio, not the Commissioner, but her sister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has cooperated so fully in the work to implement the internal market.

Political group: PPE-DE
I also have a financial interest in telecom and space so I will not participate in the vote. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0122/2000) by Mr Alyssandrakis, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on: “Next Steps in Radio Spectrum Policy – Results of the Public Consultation on the Green Paper” (COM(1999) 538 – C5-0113/2000 – 2000/2073(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0119/2000) by Mr Alyssandrakis, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the Commission working document: “Towards a coherent European approach for space” (SEC(1999) 789 C5-0336/1999 – 1999/2213(COS)) After the adoption of two amendments: Ford, Glyn . – Mr President, on a point of order. These two amendments are very similar to those which were rejected in committee. Could we be clear that the rapporteur is giving the committee's view and not his own?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has been a long hard road on this directive. We have to thank the rapporteur for all her hard work, we have to congratulate the Parliament for the way in which we took this all the way to conciliation and got a good result, and we now have a very ambitious package in front of us, a packaging package, which, I am afraid, is going to take some Member States a lot of time to digest. We have set some very tough targets. We have recognised that this directive will enter into force in a period when we are enlarging the Union and a whole series of standards and objectives that we previously had in the group of 15 will now have to be extended to 25 Member States. Recognising that we even have weak Member States amongst the current 15, we have sensibly given derogations. I cannot stand here tonight and say my own country is a shining example of progress as regards the recycling of packaging. I am afraid we have always been slow, we have always been behind the average and we are going to have to do an awful lot of very hard work in terms of building infrastructure and putting a whole range of measures in place to ensure that we achieve the objectives that we have set down in this legislation. Along with everyone else, we must do it: if we have signed up to legislation, we must accept the responsibilities of fulfilling the obligations it gives us, and that is something which I think the UK will do and all the Member States must do. We have to recognise that high environmental standards must be paid for, but high environmental standards will also give us benefits. We will also, in the longer term, create a cleaner and greener environment for ourselves and for our children. I commend this package to the House.

Political group: PSE
As the world’s most populous country, China forms a military and economic power. The governing Communist Party no longer has anything to do with rebellious movements of workers and farmers who fought against exploitation and lawlessness in years gone by. The opposite is now true. With the help of the army, the police, the imprisonment of critics and the application of death penalties, it makes efforts only to secure forced economic growth. A strong state is targeting its own people and is creating as much scope as possible for a new group of entrepreneurs who, thanks to low wages and poor working conditions, will get rich quick. There is no room for strikes and demonstrations, or for freedom of association, freedom of religion or free elections. If China were a small country, there would be a broad consensus for putting it under pressure. Because it is large and important, friendship and trade relations are sought right across the political divide. I unreservedly denounce this preferential treatment of China which, unfortunately, is also being advocated by some colleagues in my political group. Earlier in this debate, my Dutch fellow MEP, Mr Belder from the ChristenUnie/Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij [Dutch Christian Union/State Reformed Party], aptly remarked that a critical dialogue is inadequate as an instrument, easing our consciences as we take care of our own economic interests. I can fully endorse his conclusion in this case.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is also with regard to the agenda. As it stands in front of us, it does not contain an item which, under our new Rules, namely Rule 121a, should automatically be placed on the agenda for Mondays: a 30-minute period of one-minute speeches for Members to raise items of political interest. That should have been on our draft agenda and it appears to have been left out – no doubt an oversight, these are new rules, not everyone is used to them yet – but it should automatically be on the agenda at some point during the Monday.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, the American hyperpower has just scored a double victory. After dividing Europe by unleashing the war in Iraq, it has just prevented Europe from giving itself the constitution it needs to operate with 25 members, at the very moment when it was arresting Saddam Hussein. Over the last century, the only wall of freedom will have been the Wall of the Atlantic. Since then, we have had the Berlin wall and the Jerusalem wall. That is not the way to build peace. To those who added a brick to the wall of Atlanticism this weekend I want to say that the cement of peace, security and stability that our continent needs will not be built with walls like that. Since 1986, the European Union has experienced a divorce between the nature of its project and the institutions able to sustain it. Before now, we did not have the right to frame the question in those terms. But because enlargement reverses the numerical ratio, it forces us to raise the question of the institutions in such stark terms. And the Heads of State or Government are unable to deal with it because then they can only go back home with bad news and they do not have the double legitimacy of the nations and states. That double legitimacy existed in the Convention. That is why we reached an outcome that ought to have been validated by the Heads of State or Government. Now, Europe’s contribution to the world balance will not be consolidated on the blocking power some wanted to introduce this weekend. Do those who rejoice at this failure, imagining a hard core resigned to not having a working Europe of 25 and allowing this wall of Atlanticism to be built want to be the agents of division and of new rifts in our continent? Let us note those things where we can make progress, but let us not give carte blanche to those 82 points. Let us look at them one at a time and see what can be done. Your Presidency’s conclusion, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, where national egotisms have carried the day, turns its back on the hopes that were born of the Convention. The mandate given to the Irish Presidency is not equal to what is at stake. Those who still want to provide our continent with the conditions for its stability must take up the flag again. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is a matter of great surprise and regret to me that the Chairman of a major political group such as the Group of the should get caught up in the false, subversive controversy which originated in the Italian political debate and which it is absurd to think could be continued in this House. The issue has already been thoroughly addressed in Italy and it is certainly not evidence of a problem at European level but merely of a misunderstanding or, worse, the subversive interpretation of a phrase which could have been interpreted differently. Moreover, the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Berlusconi, has provided ample explanation of what he meant by the statement, which he intended to be extremely positive. The difference between the two civilisations is clear, and his intention was merely to highlight and emphasise that there is a great difference as regards genuine freedom, which exists in the West but not in the East, as regards equal opportunities for men and women, which are established in the West but denied in the East, and as regards all those differences in civilisation which – it cannot be denied – are there. That was what Mr Berlusconi meant by his statement, but, of course, everyone has read and interpreted it in their own way. Madam President, I would go so far as to say that it would be dangerous for this House to focus on a statement such as this now: at such a sensitive time as this, we need clarity, transparency and positive thinking – not a vitriolic debate – and, most importantly, we have to have the ability, which I do not see in the opposition, to extend a hand and interpret what people say in the positive sense intended rather than always placing a negative interpretation on things. It is therefore our intention to oppose any initiative seeking to open an interim procedure in this House, as has been suggested.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall do my best to say what I have to say in the two minutes I am allowed. On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I should like first of all to point out that there has been considerable development in relation to the report on which we are to give our opinion. Let me remind you that the basic position of the Committee on Foreign Affairs was that we should look resolutely to the future, give ourselves the resources for a practicable policy and, in any case, also give ourselves, i.e. Parliament, real resources to monitor the action undertaken on behalf of the Commission, particularly as regards expenditure of the type we discussed. We noted that Mr Prodi’s statement was indeed very positive in this respect. He announced that collaboration with Parliament would be a fresh collaboration. As time has passed, we have observed that this collaboration is indeed in operation. Many Commissioners have had no trouble in appearing before our committees in order to answer questions, particularly the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We also thought it would be rather clumsy of the committee to hold the current Commission responsible for the attitudes of previous Commissions. On the other hand, it is also obvious that we are continuing to demand that the present Commissioners show the utmost transparency with regard to Parliament. I think this is essential and indeed I believe it is the case. Finally, I should also like to say that, in the context of this Commission, we feel that Parliament will have to take firm control of OLAF because this is in fact one of the key means that we are going to be able to develop for the future. Whatever the case, Mr President, I think that the salient conclusion that should be drawn from our work – and this view is shared by a good number of fellow Members of all political complexions – is that henceforth, firstly, we shall do our utmost to monitor what is going on and, secondly, we shall insist, as a basic requirement, that the Commission should be open with us.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in agreement with the rapporteur and the Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Watson, I would like to present an oral amendment to this compromise amendment, which would add a first sentence. In English, it is worded as follows: '... Calls on the Council to do its utmost to implement the mandate from the European Council of 21 September and 19 October to unanimously adopt this proposal. Failing that, apply Article 40 ...' (Because more than 12 Members were opposed to voting on this oral amendment, it was not taken into account)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Färm, the rapporteur, has said all that I was going to say. I simply wanted to thank the presidency but also the sessional services for all the work they do to ensure that this process goes through so smoothly. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you for your reply. I should just like to apologise for the error in my question to the Commission. Instead of 2004, it should, of course, be 1 July 2000. I have some sympathy with the Commission's standpoint that derogations should only be granted occasionally. Such a rule is only normal. Nevertheless, I should like to ask two questions: Are you thinking of embarking upon continued discussions with the Swedish Government about extending the derogations, for example for as long as Denmark and Finland have derogations? My second question concerns the whole policy on alcohol. This may, of course, be seen as an issue concerning the internal market, but also as a public health matter for the whole EU. What are the respective roles of alcohol policy and public health considerations in the Commission's work? A Europe-wide policy on alcohol is not just an issue concerning the internal market. It also has important implications for public health. If we had considered these aspects in their overall context, then it might have been easier to carry on a dialogue with Sweden.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we must establish cooperation with Russia, a country wounded in its statehood, so that she can become a European state that aspires to education and culture. Mr Oostlander’s report is crucially important and it sets out to achieve this cooperation. We have to use our combined powers to heal the wounds that ten years of crude capitalism have inflicted on Russia. Boycotts will not resolve the problem. Things are now going badly for Russia. There is no middle class: there are just the super-rich and the super-poor. Half the population live below the poverty line. The country is in sharp moral decline: it is almost like Sodom and Gomorra. There are fears that the number of HIV-positive cases will rise in the next few years to close on 600 000, and the disease is also beginning to hit young people hard. Eighty per cent of new infections concern people under the age of 25. The birth rate is dropping, the mortality rate is going up, and the net loss in Russia’s population amounts to a million a year. That goes to show just how bad things are for the people there. The country is also burdened by the need to protect nature and human beings from old mistakes. There are still 300 tons of anthrax bacteria manufactured for purposes of biological warfare in existence there, and just a small dose is lethal. Dozens of tons of waste plutonium have to be destroyed as a result of disarmament negotiations. The EU must help Russia, because in that way it is also preventing risks that would threaten itself. The most important area of cooperation is energy policy, which is connected with superpower politics, which governs, for example, the transportation of oil and gas from the east to the west. Today 30-40% of EU gas comes from Russia, and in ten years’ time the EU will be almost totally dependent on Russian gas. There is no northern, western or southern alternative for this. The EU countries should not be a geopolitical extension of the United States in matters of gas and oil pipelines. The EU is no threat to the Russians, but a unipolar world under the leadership of the USA is. The Russians cannot, at least not yet, oppose NATO’s sly expansion through the militarisation of EU structures. Slyness does not become us: we must build a Europe of economic cooperation.

Political group: GUE-NGL