GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as the rapporteur and Mr Lange have already said, the positive outcome of this legislative procedure is useful, not just in terms of what the directive lays down but also because it marks the start of a process and there is the prospect of a gradual change across the entire manufacturing process in a sector as important as the automotive industry, and a review of the entire process, from vehicle design through to the choice of new materials and components to make proper recycling possible. Not only is manufacturing reconciled with environmental protection, but we are taking the first steps along the road which has been defined as the environmental conversion of the economy, in what is, I repeat, such an important industry. Of course, we have only achieved this result after complex negotiations with car manufacturers, who have at last agreed to bear the financial burden of scrapping cars as from 2007. Lastly, it is important to highlight another point too, which is of a more specific political-institutional nature. Let us be honest, we are all aware that we started the conciliation procedure from very opposed positions – there was even a certain amount of interinstitutional tension between Parliament and the Council – with many national differences in terms of both experience and interests. And yet, thanks to the commitment and sense of responsibility of all concerned, we reached a consensus in a difficult, major and highly controversial field, and in doing so we have added another building block in the construction of Europe. At this point in time, in terms of the more general debate currently underway, this is a significant result.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Danish Presidency. I live as close to Denmark as is possible. I can see Denmark from my window. It is only four kilometres away across the narrowest stretch of Öresund. I am also pleased to welcome the Danish Presidency’s major prioritisation of enlargement. I hope and believe that you will bring this about. During the Swedish Presidency, we carried the baton a long way forward. Now it is time to cross the finishing line, and I believe that with care you will succeed in this. I also have some hope for the UN conference in Johannesburg. I am currently a little pessimistic, having seen the Spanish Presidency fail to prioritise sustainable development. I hope you will not incline too much towards the US, for example on environmental issues. There is a wide gap between Europe and the US on these issues. We can only hope that the US aligns itself more with us, but we cannot rely on it. Like many others, I would also like to bring up the asylum and refugee policy. In this context, I would like to refer to a report by Mr Haarder, in which Member States were urged, in conjunction with the development of a common asylum system, to go one step further than the minimum levels for harmonisation by adopting high standards of protection as the basis for future asylum systems However, Denmark has done exactly the opposite in the time that Mr Haarder has been a minister. Denmark has gone from a high standard down to what may be the minimum level, instead of doing as the European Parliament said, namely trying to maintain high standards of protection. I am disappointed in the Seville Summit in this respect, as it mostly dealt with illegal immigration. I am aware of the problem and realise that it requires resolution, but this cannot be brought about by a less generous asylum and refugee policy. Therefore, I am incredibly disappointed in Denmark. You have responsibility as the Presidency-in-Office to live up to what was said in the European Parliament when Mr Haarder was a Member and Vice-President. You ought to reflect a little when you receive criticism from your party colleagues in Sweden, from us Swedish Social Democrats, but applause from the National Front. That should give pause for thought.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our group has requested the debate on the disaster that has taken place in Galicia – on European shores – and I would like to defend this position. The chairmen of our group have requested this debate I do not want to raise a point of order, but simply explain the issue before the vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an agreement by 189 nations to eliminate nuclear weapons. However, 34 years after it entered into force, we are in a situation where the United States is willing to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes, where the UK refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, where research and development and the testing of nuclear weapons continue, where nuclear weapons are still considered a vital part of Nato defence planning, where new generations of battlefield nuclear weapons are developed and where the nuclearisation of space is well under way. In the last review conference in 2000 the 13-step plan was agreed as a way of implementing the NPT and it renewed the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear states to eliminate their weapons. The PrepCom in New York is the last chance to implement this programme before the next review conference in 2005. Unless we take a strong stand now, the NPT is in danger of becoming meaningless – full of good intentions, but resulting in little political action. The European Union has a duty to take a leading role in this and to ensure that real action is taken. Nuclear weapons make the world more insecure and dangerous. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that their use, or even their threatened use, was unlawful, which makes the strengthening of the NPT all the more urgent. We are talking here about real, existing weapons of mass destruction and destroying them in the most effective way by enforcing international agreements. We are asking the presidency, the Council and the Commission what exactly is being done in preparation for the PrepCom in New York. What progress has been made, for example, on the 13 practical steps and on nuclear-free zones? My country, Wales, declared itself nuclear-free in 1982. What is being done to support the pioneering work of the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in mobilising cities throughout the world to work for the total abolition of nuclear weapons? This must be the goal of all of us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, may I first and foremost express our deep respect for the rapporteur and for the way she has brought about this well-founded report? Mrs Van Lancker has taken ample account not only of all the groups, but also of the different sensitivities within the groups. The sensitivity of the report is evident for everyone to see. It concerns an issue which urgently requires clear policy. After all, there is today a huge discrepancy between the different Member States in terms of the rights of women in the area of sexual and reproductive health. This means that the right to decide what happens to your own body is also different in the Member States. All Member States must shoulder their individual responsibility in this respect. In some countries, it is still completely impossible these days to terminate a pregnancy in a legal and safe manner. As a consequence, ‘abortion shopping’ is on the increase. Mrs Van Lancker mentioned this a moment ago. However, women will go where they can. For example, last year, no fewer than 6 000 women travelled from Ireland to Great Britain for an abortion. The numbers increase every year. My fellow MEP here only knows this too well, as she is from Ireland. Such statistics illustrate that this is a fact that will affect virtually every family sooner or later, particularly in those countries where sexual education and access to contraception remain sub-standard. I can identify with people who are against legalising abortion, but I do ask myself whether our policy-makers have the right to deny women an abortion? Every policy-maker must be acutely aware of their educational role and it is exactly for that reason that we must also prevent pregnancy from in future becoming something one either does or does not have insurance for. Under no circumstances whatsoever should it be possible to proceed with a termination, whatever the pressures to do so, without the consent of the woman. Finally, what really matters therefore is to protect pregnant women, on the one hand, and accept that it is always the woman herself who has to decide what happens to her body, on the other. Consequently, Member States therefore have an enormous task of preventing abortions that are not carried out for specifically woman-related reasons, such as poverty, career or stigmatisation. We will be voting in favour of the proposal tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a rule our food is already safe. Nevertheless, 2 000 people worldwide die every year of salmonella poisoning. In the United States alone, 9 000 people die each year of microbe-related food poisoning. These are worrying statistics, and we are not even talking about other food-related illnesses. With the general principles of food law, we are laying new foundations for safe food and we will be building on those in the next few months and years. We must work on a system which fills consumers with confidence. Emotions sometimes run high where food is concerned, beef being a recent European example of this. Politicians cannot and must not ignore these emotions, but we must consider the facts. That is where the European Food Authority comes into its own: it must be a beacon of objectivity. The European Food Authority must join forces with national authorities, but we must ensure that it is not rendered powerless from the word go and that it is headed by an approachable front man who does not need to fight to impose his authority but who embodies quality and authority. I would like to finish off with a word of thanks to the rapporteur who has proved to personify the self-same quality and authority.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Torres Marques on her magnificent work. Today, tourism is one of the most important sectors in the European Union and the absolute number one objective in certain regions in which tourism provides the majority of their gross domestic product and it is essential to the development and cohesion of these regions that they themselves also have significant common policies in other fields. The lack of a legislative basis which would make this sector more operative and remove it from the field of unanimous decision-making within the Council will give impetus to this sector, which is in the hands of the large tour operators and completely outside the control of this House. We therefore need decisions to be taken by qualified majority voting for tourism in the European Union. The necessary action to protect the consumer must not lead us to forget the protection of the interests of the countries and regions for which tourism is a product, which is also necessary. The impact of tourism on regional planning, the impact on the environment, the traditional agriculture sector, employment, transport and its essential infrastructures, as well as relations with other non-Community States which are providers and receivers of tourism, in which that tourism generates wealth and employment, make the adoption of an operative decision urgent. The creation of a system of quality and efficiency indicators for tourism and the integrated management of the coastal areas within the field of policies at local, regional and national level must appear in a directive and not in a mere recommendation. An in-depth analysis should be made of the impact of fiscal transport measures on tourism and the environmental impact of tourism and, finally, the Convention and the Council should work in this direction. We therefore also need a common umbrella, a common policy and also common promotion for tourism in the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the report we are debating concerns one of the most central issues of the economic unification of Europe, the unification of the financial markets. The principle that a large financial market offers greater liquidity and greater economic weight is well known. It can also offer greater competitiveness and, consequently, better prices to transacting parties. In this way, it encourages investors and investments and an increase in investments has an obvious economic importance on which we all agree. Our group is aiming for the maximum possible employment which can be created by increasing investments. The Commission proposal is based on the unification of the financial markets, on the so-called ‘European passport’; in other words, it offers investment banks the right to develop their activities in all 15 Member States, provided they comply with the rules of approval in just one Member State rather than in 15. But the Commission has complemented its proposal with the thought that, if a financial market really is to be able to operate without frontiers, the transacting parties must feel the same security wherever they place their money in Europe. This thought has given rise to regulatory rules common to everyone, which the Commission is also introducing in connection with the exercise of activities in a fair and transparent manner, the integrity of the market and the rights of investors to proper, honest treatment by banks and financiers. Rules always regulate conflicting interests. The interests are fluid at the moment, because technology and the concentration of banking capital in large enterprises are creating new conditions, conditions under which banks are turning into stock exchanges with internal transactions and the stock exchanges are turning from infrastructures into companies. Thus, there is a risk of multiple fragmentation of the market which the directive, in one of its most controversial provisions, is trying to overcome, by forcing investment banks to communicate with the market transparently and before and after their commercial transactions are closed. Generally speaking, the Commission proposal has again struck a good balance between the various interests and technological developments. The debate and the amendments by the Committee on Economic Affairs in general reinforce the Commission's work, thanks to the huge contribution by the rapporteur, whom I want to congratulate on her endeavour and her conciliatory approach. I hope that this conciliatory approach will prevail until the end and that the amendments proposed by our group will be supported, so that the report can be approved by a large majority.

Political group: PSE
It is a good thing that the European Parliament has just consigned the result of the mediation on the thirteenth directive (hostile takeovers) to the wastepaper basket. It means that this rickety proposal for a directive is now no longer on the table and the European Commission can quickly get down to work and work out new proposals. If the Commission takes account of the feelings of the great majority in Parliament a new proposed directive can be tabled very quickly. Conditions for rapid adoption by Parliament will be that the decision on a hostile bid should rest not with the shareholders but with the Board of Management, that the Board of Management should decide in the light of all interests, i.e. also those of the employees, that the new proposal creates a true “level playing field” in Europe, which means, for example, that government intervention, in the form of “golden shares” or anything else, to combat takeovers, should be banned, and that companies in the EU are allowed to maintain at any rate the same protection constructions as in the US. Only in this way can a balanced proposal for legislation be tabled that accords with the socio-economic tradition in most European countries and puts a decisive stop to the market fundamentalism that underlies the proposal just rejected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Daul report on the sugar sector is exceptionally well thought out. It responds to the needs of all sides, while remaining within the bounds of the possibilities and balances offered by the common agricultural policy. The proposals made in the report really do serve the interests of Community sugar beet and sugar cane growers in respect of their employment and standards of living. They also respond to the need for programmed production given that, as I am sure you are aware, beet is a four-year crop grown in rotation with other arable crops. They also protect consumer interests in terms of both prices and quality specifications. The dates on which the current regime expires have been brought into line with the deadlines agreed in Berlin. This adjustment is extremely important not only because all the interested parties know the exact date on which the regime changes and will comply with it, but also because we have a specific offer to table at the forthcoming WTO negotiations. The system for producing sugar from sugar beet is a self-financing system. Most of the expenditure under this system is incurred from granting export refunds. The highest level of export refunds allowed by the WTO is the 2000-2001 level. It would be a tragic mistake if the EU were to change the regime before it is obliged to do so and can demand something in return. Finally, the sugar sector is a sector which needs considerable investment if it is to function properly. No such investment will be made unless there are at least medium-term prospects. So we are delighted to give our support to the Daul report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Yiannitsis, Mr Prodi, spurred on by today’s debate in Parliament and the vote on the Commission’s position on the WTO, I would ask the Greek Presidency: how should we deal with the Mediterranean products disaster given the desire for the gradual dismantling of aid and support for agricultural produce? The desire to end support and to promote the free market is certainly positive, but how can we pursue this objective gradually, taking into account on the one hand, the needs of developing countries, and on the other, the needs of Mediterranean countries which would surely suffer severe, inestimable damage, owing to sudden and excessive liberalisation and the withdrawal of support? This is a subject which I think the Presidency of a Mediterranean country should address, and should be of particular importance to it, not least because 2010 is not far off and the free market area is an appointment we cannot miss, but one for which we are making inadequate preparations. We should initiate a major debate and large awareness campaign throughout the Union on this subject. A final remark on the European research area, which greatly concerns me: our economy is indissolubly linked to our ability to intensify research, but many small-sized, very small businesses remain outside the Sixth Framework Programme, not because the Programme itself requires it, but because they cannot manage to take advantage of this opportunity by themselves. I would call for an incentive to be considered for small-sized business combinations, especially in circumstances where there is little inclination to plan and make arrangements together.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish to make a brief point of order. I was due to leave for Washington on Tuesday with the Delegation of Coordinators of the temporary Committee of Enquiry on ‘ECHELON’, which was to make an official visit to the United Nations from 9 to 11 May. The United States Ambassador to Brussels has now informed me that my visa has been refused for political reasons, that the file had gone to Washington and the United States Embassy advised me to cancel my trip with the delegation. If it were possible, Mr President, I should like Parliament’s Bureau to take this matter up with the American authorities, as Mr Wurtz, Chairman of the Group has already done, because I think it would be a scandal if the United States government could decide on who should be a member of a European Parliament delegation. (Applause from the left)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Court of Auditors’ report on the ECB relates, of course, to the period of transition from the EMI to today’s ECB, a fact which characterises the report itself. A number of the problems pointed out in the report are specifically concerned with the transition. Some of the criticism is levelled at project follow-ups focused more upon how much money had been spent than upon how much had actually been achieved. However, the main criticism from both the Court of Auditors and the Committee on Budgetary Control concerns the extra bonus which the Bank’s employees received over and above their normal bonus and which substantially exceeded both the maximum levels set and the budgeted costs. The methods for deciding about this additional cost were also criticised. The ECB has commented on the criticism and stated, among other things, that it has improved its procedures and taken the criticism of its project management on board. The ECB also acknowledges that there has been a lack of clarity surrounding this extra bonus. We are also pleased that the ECB now recognises that OLAF must be able to carry out internal audits. However, it is a great pity about the delay involved. I am responsible for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs’ opinion on this matter, and our conclusions are simple and succinct. First of all: even though this was a difficult transitionary period, there is a great deal of substance in the Court of Auditors’ remarks on, for example, project management, and these must be taken account of in future. Secondly: the type of bonus system discussed is quite usual in the banking world, but the levels of bonus allocated in this case and the way in which the system was dealt with genuinely merits criticism. What is most worrying and a matter of serious concern is the fact that, in the Swedish and other media, the Bank’s public relations manager dismisses both the Court of Auditors’ and the European Parliament’s criticism which, he maintains, is not taken seriously in the banking world. If the Bank, which is already criticised for lack of transparency, does not take the criticism seriously, it is in danger of losing public confidence. My committee does not, however, believe that the criticism is so serious in nature that it needs to affect confidence in the ECB or cause the institution’s effectiveness to be questioned. On the contrary, the Bank deserves substantial credit for the well-managed transition from EMI to ECB.

Political group: PSE