GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it says on the voting list that, if Amendment No 40 is accepted, Amendments Nos 1 and 2 and paragraphs 16 and 17 will be invalid. We disagree. We feel that the second part of Amendment No 1 is totally compatible with Amendment No 40. It is important that we vote on the second part because it reads: ... 'and reiterates its firm belief that implementing a European security and defence policy must inevitably entail the establishment of a European defence budget and a Council of Ministers for defence.' This is not a contradiction in terms; all it means is that Amendment No 40 relates to the budget. I should like to ask you to allow us to vote on it. This will also affect how my group votes on the report as a whole. If we cannot vote on the second part of Amendment No 1, we cannot support the report as a whole.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Mayer on the report he is presenting today. I am perfectly aware that it is not the report he would have liked to approve and, although it is little consolation, I would like to say that I also would have preferred the report finally approved by Parliament to have been the one Mr Mayer initially drew up. Despite the powerful interests concerned with preventing the world trade in trade mark products, the unusual report by a consulting company which states that consumers would not benefit immediately from the acquisition of goods at lower prices and the lukewarm position of the Commission which does not seem interested in seeking a solution to a problem which has a very negative effect on European consumers, the rapporteur, Mr Mayer, has been able to produce a report urging persistence in the quest for formulae which prevent manufacturers of trade mark products from maintaining excessively high prices on European markets. When, in July 1998, the Court of Justice issued the Silhouette judgment, it caused great commotion in countries which recognised the principle of international exhaustion of the trade mark. Either by law, as in Sweden for example, or by jurisprudence, as in my country, Spain. Legally, the judgment is unassailable from the moment that it states that Article 7 of the Trade Mark Directive, by establishing the principle of Community exhaustion, indirectly establishes the prohibition of international exhaustion. But this is a legalistic interpretation which does not prevent the recognition, as the judgment does, of the harmful effects for consumers of the fact that owners of trade marks can prevent the import of their own products if they originate from third countries. The arguments used by those people who defend the prohibition of the international exhaustion of trade marks – combating counterfeiting, maintaining the prestigious image of goods, diversion of income from the manufacturer to the importer – are at odds with a reality which is demonstrated in the documents produced by the rapporteur. When parallel imports from third countries are allowed, the prices of trade mark products drop. The information provided on price increases in Germany, when the reform of German law prevented international exhaustion, is conclusive. And although my experience is of little scientific value, I must point out that I have been able to note how, in the United States, a product which in Spain costs me EUR 10, costs me just EUR 1.5. For all these reasons and despite the reservations involved in finding a consensus in favour of a more ambitious resolution, it is important that the Commission takes the initiative in favour of consumers and brings forward proposals to strengthen the world market, removing barriers to trade, which are not just customs barriers, but which often consist of anti-competitive practices by companies whose aim is to defend their own profits.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is one of the few occasions on which I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Katiforis, not because we talk the same language or are from the same country, but because we agree on what is called common sense. I am sorry, but common sense is nowhere to be seen in this proposal for a directive, which we, too, propose should be rejected in its entirety. If it is not rejected, we are all in danger of exposing ourselves because, if this sort of directive is adopted, it will have exactly the opposite of, what the Council says, are the desired results. I should also like to point out that it would be most useful if the Council were present rather than absent, like their common sense. The Council says that the aim is to combat tax evasion and cigarette smuggling. If we increase tax, then we shall increase tax evasion. We all know that, the higher the tax, the more attractive tax evasion becomes. If we increase the price of cigarettes, as is proposed, then we shall, without question, increase cigarette smuggling because we shall be making legal cigarettes more expensive than smuggled cigarettes. So we shall be working counter to our aims. Again, the Council tells us that one of its aims is to protect public health and that this aim will be achieved by people giving up smoking because cigarettes are more expensive. And who can say that people stop smoking when cigarettes go up in price? The best case scenario is that there will be no change in the consumption of cigarettes. The worst case scenario is that smokers on low incomes will change to cheaper, that is, more harmful cigarettes. Is that what we want to achieve? How clever of us! Similarly, the proposals in the proposed directive are wrong because, first of all, they restrict application to five, mainly southern countries. The other ten are not affected because they are already at the topmost point. Secondly, the cost of living will rise in these five countries, four of which are southern countries, without any increase in wages, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures. I also think we should ask ourselves what the candidate countries have to say about this proposal for a directive? Do they think it shows the European Union's concern for them? And it would be helpful to know how their governments are going to persuade them that integration into the European Union will benefit consumers, when they will have to pay 200 to 500% more for cigarettes under this sort of directive. Finally, I should like to express my disappointment with Ecofin for its rushed attempt to pre-empt tomorrow's vote here by issuing details of its compromise agreement. That was a mistake on their part.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his very careful reply, which he relates very much to this particular question, the issue of Lloyd's. I should like to think of this in terms of two very general principles: firstly, the implementation of legislation by Member States and action by the Commission to ensure that that happens; secondly, the entitlement to information between Parliament and the Commission during such enforcement measures. I should also like to apply some common sense to those two principles. Looking with common sense at how this particular matter proceeded, one cannot but feel that something is not quite right, that there is a period of 20 years when nothing seems to happen and no implementation takes place. I am sorry, Commissioner, that your colleague, Commissioner Bolkestein is not here. I know that he shares our deep concern about implementation of legislation by Member States and making sure that it happens effectively so that the internal market, of which we are all so proud, works properly. However, if it takes a Member State over 20 years to implement a directive, and a Member State can carry on without doing that for such a long period of time, then common sense tells us that something is not right. I am greatly concerned – as I am sure others are – about the message that this sends out to acceding states on the eve of enlargement concerning the way we conduct our business and the way we expect Member States to adhere to Community law. It is all very well to say that there is no past incompatibility. As a lawyer, that sounds to me like a very nice, lawyer's answer. What we are looking for here are common sense answers and an answer to the question as to why a Member State can be so long in default and why it is that we, as Parliament, cannot get a simple answer to a simple question about that. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, on behalf of Lord Inglewood I should like to say that he is extremely sorry not to be here, but he is unavoidably detained in the UK for family and business reasons. This report, which I am pleased to present on his behalf and on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is an important part of the Legal Affairs Committee's remit on behalf of Parliament to encourage simplification and good-quality drafting of Community legislative instruments. In this particular case, quite a lot of important work has been done by the Commission in incorporating and simplifying three texts related to life insurance. The source text dates as far back as 1979 and, apart from the codification process of incorporating amendments that have been made over that period into the legislative text, the reason for this more substantive report is that the Commission has found it necessary to propose a number of amendments to reflect changes that have taken place in the market since that time and to improve the overall quality and integrity of the text. I do not need to detain the House with a lot of the technical details relating to those texts. Those of you that are experts on the subject will clearly want to refer to the Commission's own text and the Commission has provided an extremely helpful and clear explanatory statement for those of us who are not, unlike Lord Inglewood, distinguished lawyers – which is why he has been able to make such a good job of scrutinising this text on behalf of Parliament. In view of the work that has been done, our job here is just to ensure that there are no political issues arising out of what is largely a set of technical amendments. Lord Inglewood has taken soundings of the industry. He has looked particularly at the texts of the six amendments, to make sure that they do not introduce any principles outside the directives' original political remit and he is satisfied in this case. Therefore, so far as his report is concerned, he is pleased to recommend adoption of the Commission proposal to the House without any further amendments. By way of general conclusion, we in the Legal Affairs Committee regard the quality of drafting and simplification of legislation as an important remit. It is worthwhile reminding colleagues throughout the House who are working on legal texts that this is a principle that we all need to bear in mind when we are amending legislative texts of any kind. When we see and look at work in other committees it is not entirely clear that colleagues bear simplification in mind. In many cases we see far too many complicated texts coming out of work done by this House. It is an important principle – maybe this is an uncontroversial issue but the principle of the quality and clarity of legislative instruments is important. I commend this report as a good example of that process.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism adopted this opinion on the EQUAL report at its concluding discussion with no votes against and one abstention. I am deliberately stating this at the beginning of my intervention to make it clear that there is in fact an alternative view to that of the committee responsible, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. This cross-group support for the opinion is explained by the conclusions, which are devoted to the question of how issues related to regional policy, transport and tourism can be combined with action to combat all forms of discrimination and inequalities in connection with the labour market. The members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism of course also identify a number of areas of the Commission proposal which they would criticise: firstly, for example, the insufficient thematic guidelines laid down for the development partnership activities; secondly, the fact that strict selection criteria for evaluating the project proposals will only be drawn up only at a later stage by the Commission and thirdly, the fear of excessive administrative and technical expenditure on project management by the Commission and the technical assistance bodies. That is why a ceiling needs to be set for administrative expenditure. The committee based its conclusions on these critical comments. We attached particular importance to linking the creation of new jobs for disadvantaged and excluded people in the social sector, in tourism and in small and medium-sized enterprises with promoting the establishment of new small and medium-sized businesses bearing in mind the necessary economic structural change. Dovetailing the activities under the Community initiative with the European employment initiatives is an essential requirement and a crucial prerequisite for attaining the objectives of the EQUAL programme. We fully support the innovative approach towards setting up development partnerships and organising the exchange of experience at European level as an integral part of the EQUAL programme. The specific target of deriving European added value brings the regional cooperation up to European level while retaining the cooperation of the various regional operators. This is a good approach and that is why we have also supported it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This report is the result of a broad consensus between the political forces of the right and the social democrats on developing the common foreign and security policy and militarising the European Union. Among the many points justifying our outright rejection of this report, I would like to highlight the following. They come as no surprise: - the report ‘welcomes’ the ‘European security strategy’ presented at the Thessaloniki European Council. This strategy overtly sanctions the doctrine of military intervention, in accordance, furthermore, with the new strategic role of NATO; - the report talks of militarising the EU in the interests of so-called ‘transatlantic relations’, seeking a ‘partnership’ between the EU and the USA so as to dominate and divide up the world; - it ‘welcomes the fact that strengthening military capabilities’ has been enshrined as an objective of the so-called ‘European Constitution’, and that a European armaments agency has been set up as a central plank in the process of militarising the EU. It also attempts to restrict the sovereignty of each Member State in the field of foreign policy, referring to every Member State’s supposed ‘Constitutional commitment’ to refrain from adopting a national position before the EU has had the opportunity to establish a European position. For the rest, this report imitates the USA’s positions on most of the issues which currently dominate the world stage.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to justify why the Group of the European People’s Party voted against the Myller report while saying that we fully support the project and the Commission’s Environment Action Programme. The Commission drew up an excellent, very balanced and scientific programme, with a great sense of the future, and which aimed to be a document that would arrive in Johannesburg with all the dignity of Europe, proclaiming a viable, feasible environmental policy that is accessible to all and can be implemented and made a reality. However, here in Parliament many amendments have been introduced. As a group, we cannot accept any of them. As a group, in order to demonstrate our willingness, we have broadened the usual horizons of the environment and we have added very clear support for the urban environment, which did not previously exist, we have increased interest in the countryside and the rural environment, we have also supported municipal participation, which did not feature in the proposal, and we have also supported public health with great enthusiasm. However, we find that measures have been introduced which are impossible for citizens to comply with. The level has been raised so high that it is impossible even for the enlargement countries to achieve it. We think that we need to govern with our heads and with a spirit of solidarity towards the citizens. We cannot impose things so that we, the Members, get the credit, and profess to belong to the ‘greenest’ group of all, while it is causing major problems for the people. For example, with regard to labelling, complying with the standard would require all companies, including the smallest ones, to have a large amount of bureaucracy devoted to filling in labels, and small companies would have to take out civil liability insurance. It would be crazy what the people would have to do if these measures had to be applied. As far as taxes are concerned, a general European tax would fall on the poorest people, those who live outside the cities, etc. For all of these reasons, we voted against the report because we defend the people and a viable and common sense model.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I welcome what I believe we will all agree is an exemplary piece of work. We now have a comprehensive blueprint for the way in which cultural policy could operate in the Union. The rapporteur has worked particularly well with the initiator of policy and legislation in the European Commission. I should like to make a few points. First of all we have to acknowledge in this House and beyond that the creative and knowledge industries have become a driver in our new global economy and that the skills that we need therein have become vital to our performance in the European economy. More than this, the social and philosophical needs that we have in mastering the cultural question become central to ensuring that we have stability in our globalised world. This means that we have to recognise the importance of funding for cultural activities. We have to face some very difficult questions: for instance, an increasingly small part of our economy in the new global world is agriculture. The common agricultural policy, as we all know, takes a vast amount of our funds. If we are to recognise the primacy of the knowledge and information economy in the new global economy then we have to face the reality of looking at different priorities for our fundings. All the measures in the Ruffolo report are deliverable, but in order to deliver we must ensure that we have cooperation across institutions and at different levels of government. This means that we must look, for instance, at the structural funds and the way in which we monitor the amount of money that is spent on cultural activities. Recently a Commission official said to me that we could not do this. I have to inform him that all he needs do is to go to any of the municipalities in the Union and they will tell him how to do it. That is what officials are employed to do. He could even look at the Single Programming Documents in order to do this. It is possible to do it when we need to. I say this not to slight the Commission or their staff but to say that cooperation is needed in order to achieve what Mr Ruffolo, in such an exemplary manner, has set out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this time I shall speak not only as representative of the Pensioners’ Party, but also as a former sailor, because both the measures that we have discussed this morning concern the sea: the first, short sea shipping and the other, the environment, and the sea is often the victim of environmental crime. This morning, a pensioner telephoned me from Liguria and said: “It is really hot. I wanted to go swimming but I had to come home straight away because the sea was very polluted and full of tar. So what are you doing for those of us who live in Liguria, in Genoa, and although we have the sea, it is polluted?” “Do not worry”, I said, “Today is Friday 7 July. On Fridays we normally discuss fish, and today we are discussing the sea.” Now, just as I voted for the measure on short sea shipping ports – and I hope these will include Genoa, Imperia, Savona, Toulon and Marseilles – I also voted for the measure on cleaning up the sea, which is so important for pensioners and people who live on the coast.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you just said, the debate with Mr. Solana is not due to start for another 25 minutes, despite the fact that there are a great many urgent questions which cannot now be dealt with. We have finished early nearly every Thursday afternoon over recent weeks. There is nothing on the agenda this evening after the vote on the Plumb report and tomorrow morning’s agenda is almost non-existent. It seems to me that a curious discrepancy is starting to take shape. On Tuesday and Wednesday, there were considerable delays. Question time with the Commission started nearly one and a half hours late and yet Thursday’s agenda is disappearing before our very eyes. The question which I wish to raise and which I would ask the Bureau to clarify is if, having done away with Fridays, certain parties are now trying to do away with Thursdays.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome the Commission's package of reforms affecting the common fisheries policy. I am also pleased to see that little has been changed from the original objectives of reform. The existing common fisheries policy has failed to achieve its objectives. It fails to provide an adequate living for many fishermen and, at the same time, it fails to conserve fish stocks for present and future generations. We have to make hard choices. In the new CFP, we must cut the existing EU fleet; however the EU should not make a blanket cut but take into account the different sizes of the EU national fleets. For example, the Scottish fleet has already shrunk in recent years to a more sustainable size. We must see an end to the subsidising of boat-building and put this money into helping fishermen who are coming out of the industry to find new employment. We must see the retention of the 6 and 12-mile limits as proposed by the Commission – most Member States agree that these act as a safeguard for coastal regions especially dependent on fishing – with much closer involvement of the fishing industry via the new regional advisory councils in the development and operation of fisheries management measures. We must seriously examine the problem of discards and we need improved inspection and enforcement standards across the Community and an equalising of these standards. Finally, we need better agreement on fishing in developing countries' waters, based on sound science to prevent over-exploitation of stocks. I look forward to the next six months. The sooner we get a conclusion, the better. Time is short, but if the will is there I am confident we can have a CFP fit for this century.

Political group: PSE