GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the British Labour MEPs fully support the polluter pays principle and, with this in mind, believe that the cost of motoring in general should better reflect the real costs to society and, in particular, the environment. This can be best achieved by the introduction, where appropriate and where there is local support, of charging schemes. Congestion charging plays a key role in combating congestion, pollution and global warming. The successful and popular Central London charging scheme is an example of this new approach and represents the most ambitious urban road pricing scheme in Europe. Other towns and cities in the UK are pursuing similar initiatives. For lorries, Labour in the UK advocates the introduction of a lorry user charge, which is to be introduced in 2006 and, incidentally, is strongly supported by the main haulage-trade associations. Therefore, whilst we fully support the principle of interoperability of toll systems, it is essential that these pioneering British initiatives are not in any way prejudiced. We therefore support EU action to agree minimum technical standards to permit interoperability of tolling technology, so as to avoid vehicle owners having to install a number of separate units, with obvious consequences regarding cost and inconvenience. However, it would be wrong to prescribe the type of technology. We therefore welcome the Sommer report and would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, which fully addresses these concerns, seeking compatibility rather than rigidly prescribing the type of technology, which should rightly be left to the market or, under the principle of subsidiarity, to Member States. One area where there could be clarification is the role of regional and local authorities, and we urge Members to support Amendment No 45, which makes it clear that is the appropriate level for decision-making in some cases. We also advocate support for Amendment No 44, which seeks to clarify that onboard equipment is not compulsory. Finally, let us all make it clear that if we adopt this report tomorrow we are not forcing any Member State or local authority to charge motorists or hauliers. We are reasonably and sensibly seeking to ensure compatibility between schemes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is no doubt that the regulation in question is extremely important. With this regulation, the European Union is establishing the means and time periods for the progressive elimination of the substances which deplete the ozone layer, and I can assure you that I do not underestimate the danger of the current situation at all. The drive to further speed this up, set in motion by Parliament at first reading, has been broadly accepted by the Council. Despite this, Mrs Hulthén’s report again re-submits amendments which were not adopted, which indiscriminately anticipate the dates of bans on the production, marketing and use of the various substances. In general, it is a question of an approach, or rather, a commendable intention consistent with the Montreal Protocol which, however, at the same time, does not take some facts into account: firstly, the fact that the other countries that are signatories of the Protocol, including the United States, anticipate longer time periods for ending the production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons; secondly, hydrochlorofluorocarbons are, given the current state of knowledge, the only real alternative in the field of fire-fighting, to halogens, the main destroyers of the ozone layer, which are still widely used in developing countries. We are not convinced either, by the inflexibility that the report wants to maintain regarding methyl bromide. I am sorry that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection did not want to seek a reasonable compromise based on the principle of realism. At times, we have the impression that, according to one interpretation of protecting the environment, the asserting of principles, if not flying the environmental flag, is ultimately more important than the actual result. The European Union has to be at the cutting edge, it has even been said this evening, but, as regards restoring the ozone layers in the stratosphere, and similarly, controlling the greenhouse effect, the result cannot be measured on the basis of Europe’s speed, but only by taking an overall view. For these reasons, the common position of the Council, even if it is not completely satisfactory, certainly seems more balanced.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe it would have been more appropriate if you had given me the floor first, since in other similar debates, when there have been questions from Members which are similar to each other, you, sitting as President, have combined them all. I have Question No 13 which is practically identical to No 6, and I would have liked you, as on other occasions, to have combined questions so that we do not have to debate the same issue twice. I do not know if there is still time for you to allow me to put Question No 13.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, you are quite right to say that business people must sort this out among themselves, but we all know that, in order to do so, they need a marketplace, that is to say, an exchange where it is possible to trade in these rights, these CDM projects. Do you think it possible that the Commission might take the initiative in providing such an exchange with a base in Europe?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, can I reassure you that we have not changed offices for the delegation to Central Asia. I am still vice-president, Mr Di Pietro is still president and Mr Koukiadis is still vice-president as well. Mr Mussa very kindly stood in for us at a meeting yesterday. We welcome the genuine dialogue that we have with the Kazakh Government, parliament, the opposition and the wider community. Kazakhstan is travelling the road from a Soviet republic to an independent and democratic state. Our task is to help keep them firmly on that road. They have our sympathy and support in tackling the many problems they face: pollutants, locusts and AIDS, to name but three. We understand how far Kazakhstan has already travelled towards democracy and human rights. They understand our need to air concerns when they arise and when they are brought to us. To some extent, the tabling of this motion has already brought some answers. The ombudsman system, for example, could be expanded. Perhaps the European Union could help them do just that. But at least it is the first ombudsman system in a CIS country. Religious minorities were targeted by the government, but I am pleased to hear now that has been vetoed by the president. Mr Duvanov's trial was closed to the public. That is not entirely satisfactory. The US and Dutch embassies may have been represented but why were not the Kazakh human rights groups? The Council of Opposition Parties has now been established, although one of the main opposition parties is not represented on it. We need to know more about the 19 January presidential law that was brought in on political parties. It inhibits the ability of some opposition movements to operate legally in the country. Kazakhstan must not slip on its road. We are watching, listening and supporting. The concerns that we have in this motion for a resolution need to be tabled. We need to ask Parliament's Central Asian Delegation to put these on our agenda for the PCA discussions we shall shortly be having with the representatives of Kazakhstan, and then report back to Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Blokland for his excellent work on this report and give my group's support for the compromise text. With the toughening of legislation on landfill there has been significant increase in waste incineration, and I know from my own experience in my constituency in Wales that incineration of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is as much a concern, in terms of its effects on health and the environment, as is landfill. It is essential that we do not replace one unhealthy and unsustainable form of waste disposal with another. Incineration is not recycling. It is not a clean and safe method of waste disposal. Genuinely sustainable alternatives must be funded and promoted and far more must be invested in research and in developing waste prevention, re-use and recycling. That is why I welcome these standards for co-incineration of municipal waste and the transportation of waste, which should help bring an end to the present trade in waste where areas with the cheapest operators and the lowest standards become the co-incineration capitals of Europe. In particular, I welcome the commitment to improving public access to information on incineration plants and the obligation on plant operators to publish an annual report on emissions. Greater openness is obviously of major concern to people who live near these incinerators, but it will also help to ensure that the plant operators themselves keep below the emission ceilings that have been set. The introduction of much stricter nitrogen oxide limits for new co-incineration plants such as cement kilns is also a step forward which will be an incentive for reducing emissions even though the standards proposed do not reflect the best available techniques. Overall, this much needed legislation will put in place safeguards to limit the worst effects of incineration on health and the environment and, I hope, discourage incineration-for-profit, which depends on the creation of more and more waste.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr Ettl’s second report provides greater guarantees that insurance undertakings other than life assurance undertakings will remain solvent too. Well then, I was thinking about that last night, Madam President. I slept extremely badly last night and had a real nightmare. Why is that? I dreamt, I am sorry to say, that the house where I live was going to be destroyed; I was running out of the bedroom and, distraught, I saw Mr Fatuzzo’s house fall in ruins. My despair was all the greater because I was insured with a dreadful insurance company. At that moment, I woke up and remembered that, I am glad to say, I am insured with a good insurance company and, most importantly, my house is still standing and I am in Strasbourg. – Flesch report (A5-0226/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, here, at the end of the debate, I just want to say that I do not think it has been negative but that it has been very realistic indeed. It has been clear-sighted, and we have shown where the problems lie. There is a clear consensus between the Commissioner, who is dealing with these questions, and Parliament’s Committee on Equality. The Commissioner has emphasised Parliament’s position and Parliament’s important role and said that the action plans are inadequate, that these must be developed further and that a clear political stance is required. I believe we should see this as being very important indeed. May I just warn against the Commission and the Council confining themselves to just four areas when they now produce the concrete programme following the Beijing Conference. I say this after 20 years’ experience of the United Nations. As soon as you begin to unpick any of the twelve points we laid down in Beijing, you have also begun to dismember the whole of the Beijing document. It is therefore incredibly important that the EU should have a very clear policy and that all twelve areas of policy carry due weight. It is all twelve areas which have to be established and for which action plans have to be prepared, and not merely three of these. Otherwise, the whole of our Beijing document might be forfeited. I want to say as well that we have also quite rightly demanded that it should be possible for the Committee on Equality and the women in Parliament to also be present at the conference which is to take place in New York in June. Just as representatives from Parliament participated in the WTO Conference, the women in Parliament ought also to be involved in this one. Allow me finally to turn to the men here. Do not see this as being something especially for the women. Do not look askance and with irritation at the fact that women are raising those problems which, right around the world, are problems faced by women. See it as an important task for you, as our male colleagues here in Parliament and as our male colleagues in the Commission, to accept your responsibility and ensure that these questions are raised to such a high level that they also become real issues in the national parliaments and the national governments and in the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must congratulate the rapporteur on her report as I appreciate and have seen for myself the great effort she has put into this difficult task, even though we disagree on some of the points contained in the document. I would like to begin by stressing that I come from a region which does not meet Objective 1 criteria. It never has been an Objective 1 region, and never will be. My region is an Objective 2 region. That said, I would also like to point out that in the past, this House heard from leaders with a vision of the future who set courses of action leading to the growth and development of a European policy for union, based on a policy of social cohesion. What we are experiencing today is not however in line with that approach. I am particularly alarmed by the plans to reduce the growth and development of social cohesion policies. I would go so far as to say that these are penny-pinching plans. To date, social cohesion has been at the heart of policy within the European Union. It is, at the very least, surprising that reference is made to minimum percentages when there are regions exceeding the 200 GDP level. As the Vice-President rightly said, what we are about is ensuring there will be no more poor regions. We should encourage all European regions to involve themselves in the cohesion-building process. We must prevent any increase in differences. The last report demonstrated that whilst it is true that the poorest regions have achieved growth in percentage terms, the richer regions have grown at least as much. That is another issue to be studied. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe this is a problem to be resolved in the future, and not now, as currently proposed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Mombaur’s report deals with the energy markets and, as everyone has understood, advocates speeding up the liberalisation of these markets. At this hour in the day and stage in the debate, I think it preferable and far more useful to get straight to the point with what I have to say. Personally, when I think in terms of ‘energy’ I think of security of supply in the long term, the guarantee of public service missions and the contribution to sustainable and environmentally friendly development. If I can, in addition, think in terms of competitiveness, then I certainly take the opportunity to do so, though, I have to admit, it is not my highest priority. That is why ladies and gentlemen, I do not agree with the rapporteur’s conclusions, or the vision and proposals put forward by Commissioner Bolkestein in ‘Frontier-Free Europe’. Those who are not in favour of accelerating the liberalisation of public utilities are not old fashioned. Those who defend public service do not use fear as an argument to defend their values, and those who are in favour of a universal service are not nostalgic, nervous nationalists, but Europeans. Mr Mombaur, unlike you, I do not have blind and absolute confidence in market mechanisms. I do not favour price reduction over security. I defend employment first and foremost and what is more, I never lose sight of the fact that public services constitute a unifying element and an element of the European social model that is so dear to your friend Mr Jacques Chirac. They are of course, also a prerequisite for balanced regional planning whose failure or inexistence would cost far more than the savings you hope to achieve. I would therefore have liked your report to have taken account of the Treaty provisions relating to general interest services and to have included proposals for measures designed to guarantee citizens’ access to public services in energy. This is because, and this is something I should like to stress, public service in energy is a factor in social cohesion, the fight against exclusion, balanced regional development, respect for the environment, security and lastly a prerequisite for national and European independence. Rapporteur, I cannot deny that you have worked hard on this and even congratulate you on your efforts, but I cannot subscribe to the ideology that underpins your proposals. I hope that the amendments tabled by Mr Harlem Desir and other Members that also share my concerns will be adopted because I personally am not in a position to vote in favour of your report as it stands.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the main question that came to the fore during today's debate was to what extent the candidate countries are ready for accession. We regret that the question as to whether the European Union is ready for it has not been addressed, or, if at all, only in passing. In the euphoria of the moment, we should not be blind to the various problem areas. I think that the main problem remains the funding of enlargement and, inherently linked to this, the reform of agricultural policy. I still regret that the necessary reform has been postponed to 2007. I also regret that it will be only in 2013 that farmers in the new Member States will receive the same treatment as do those in the present European Union. Current European agricultural policy, linking subsidy to production, is indefensible and unacceptable. It creates surpluses, keeps food prices high, damages the environment and is also detrimental to farmers in the developing world. I think that we as Parliament should therefore continue to support Commissioner Fischler in his endeavours to achieve swift and thorough reforms in agricultural policy, with the subsidies being redirected to rural development and to the new Member States. We must avoid a two-speed Europe at all costs, with one speed for the rich countries of the current EU, which cling onto their privileges like grim death, and another for the poor countries among the new Member States which have the same duties but not, unfortunately, the same rights.

Political group: ELDR
We have voted against the joint resolution based on a recital which, behind its hypocritical wording, suggests that relations between Asia and Europe are conducted between equal partners. Most Asian countries still bear the scars from their past ‘partnerships’ with the major powers, particularly those in Europe. Was the centuries long relationship between Great Britain and India a partnership between equals? Or that between France and its colonies in Indochina? Or that between China and all the great powers that attempted to dismember it into areas that suited their respective interests? In addition, in very recent times, the poor masses in a number of countries in South-Eastern Asia have had to pay a high price for their ‘partnership’ with the speculative capital interests which have swarmed all over their region. In view of the past, in view of the current economic relations between the developed major powers and the poor countries of Asia, speaking of ‘equal partners’ for the future is, at best, a pious hope, and, more probably, a means of concealing exploitative relations behind pseudo-democratic and pseudo-humanitarian phrases. It is precisely because we are in favour of developing genuinely fraternal cooperation relationships between genuinely equal partners, between all the countries of the world, that we have no intention of endorsing this double talk by voting in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The use of drugs, be they hard or soft, takes people away from useful activities and renders them less healthy. It would therefore be wonderful if drugs did not exist or if no one had any need of them. The reality is unfortunately different. International agreements that oblige states to apply zero tolerance are not going to produce a drugs-free world. Many young people experience the use of soft drugs as an inalienable freedom and there are also profiteers who happily make people dependent on the use of expensive hard drugs. A ban on soft drugs simply leads to young people rebelling and eases their move onto the use of hard drugs. I defend the Dutch system not because I am seeking a high point of individual freedom, but because it helps prevent insoluble problems. My Group of the has introduced two extremes to this debate. Mrs Schröder is making herself the mouthpiece of rebellious youth and defending total freedom without any regulation by government. Mr Alyssandrakis as a traditional Communist can see only dangerous drugs barons who must be mercilessly eliminated. Both are telling part of the truth, but saying nothing about the rest. Mrs Buitenweg’s report proposes a good middle way, one with which we in the Netherlands have acquired good experience. I have supported this way thus far and will continue to do so.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I voted for the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the EU-Swiss Confederation agreements not only because I feel that it is extremely important for Switzerland, which will undoubtedly become part of the European Union in what we hope will be the near future, to have agreements established with the Member States of the Union, but also because, when I think of Switzerland, I feel a sense of relief. Indeed, even today, all the newspapers in the European Union were proclaiming that even the fall of the European single currency, the euro, is the fault of the pensioners. Well! So pensioners are responsible for everything that goes wrong! In Switzerland, on the other hand, where income tax is only 10%, pensions are much higher than in our States. Therefore, the Pensioners’ Party has a liking for Switzerland.

Political group: PPE-DE
I very much agree with what my colleague Mrs Doyle said, and I do not actually feel that the Commissioner answered her questions adequately. In relation to mass-medication, it is completely unacceptable in terms of freedom of choice that 9 million UK citizens and 2.7 million Irish citizens are being forcibly mass-medicated. In Ireland, 91% of submissions were actually against the fluoridation of water. Clearly there is a lack of public consent here. The EU is not adhering to the precautionary principle, as it is supposed to. I would like to see the Commission push for fluoridation of drinking water throughout the EU to be discontinued until there is a proper, adequate assessment of the situation. For example, the fact there is a big difference in water consumption between hot countries and cold countries is not taken into account when discussing how much water people drink. In hotter countries a lot of people drink a lot more water and therefore they are consuming a lot more, and in some of the new Member States there is fluoride in hot water as well. Mrs Doyle's point on infants is a really serious question because infant formula is being mixed with water that has been fluoridated, and I believe that there are serious consequences for children here. My opinion is that we should not be using formula anyway.

Political group: Verts-ALE