GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first may I say that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Lord Inglewood, who is an expert on this topic and who has had to return to London at short notice. As a liberal professional myself, in this case a doctor, rather than a lawyer, I have to say that my British experience of fixed professional fees – fixed in this case by government – such as cremation fees and attendances at coroners' courts, is that they are artificially low and have tended to benefit the state rather than the professional concerned. Politically I have recently been involved with asking the Commission to examine the restrictions applied by British health insurers in only paying the medical fees for treatments provided within the UK and refusing such benefits to British residents who wish to avail themselves of treatment in, for example, France. Last year I lobbied on behalf of a British lawyer wanting to register in France as a notaire, as non-French notaires are currently prohibited by French law, and this is an activity governed in many Member States by fixed fees. Currently I am my group's shadow rapporteur on EMAC on a proposed directive for a single market and free movement for insurance mediators, whose commissions are often fixed. Therefore these concepts apply to a number of different professionals other than lawyers, as I have already mentioned. The single market is one of the major achievements of the European Community and for that market to be complete it must include services as well as goods. I entirely agree with Commissioner Bolkestein that the services sector in Europe offers huge potential growth for competition and employment which must be to the benefit of all of Europe's citizens. The Commission's initiative in this area is therefore one that I strongly support and in accordance with the so-called single market principles, it should be possible to introduce in one Member State business models providing services pioneered successfully in another, and of course they should be subject to examination under the Treaty rules on competition. I am conscious of the need for proper consumer protection across a single market, but I also suspect that many practices which have grown up over the years, through tradition and usage, may have outlived some of their original usefulness. It is very important, therefore, that a thorough inquiry be conducted which will lead to a comprehensive debate so that special privileges and practices and exemptions which may be attached to the exercise of the liberal professions – and not just the lawyers – are properly scrutinised. It is necessary to ensure that they will provide a real benefit to the citizen, and are not merely privileges supporting the vested interests of all the professions concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, less than four weeks ago the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on health rules for animal by-products not intended for human consumption. The aim of this is to avoid not only microbiological but also chemical contamination of feedingstuffs in future. In my opinion, the scope of this proposal is already wide, and it takes account of the precautionary principle. In the interests of a sustainable closed substance cycle it should still be possible to use properly tested animal materials deemed fit for human consumption in the production of feedingstuffs. We have to be realistic. There is no scientific justification for a general ban on using animal meal for all animals. Why should it cover pigs, poultry and fish, as some Member States and some Members here have been demanding? If you take the arguments of some Members of this House to their logical conclusion, you would also have to ban sales of wild boar meat. What is far more important, in the spirit of the Commission proposal, is to work towards ensuring that animal meal complies with the highest safety standards. Farms and factories that do not at present apply the highest technological standards to animal meal production should have their production licence withdrawn until they can demonstrate that they are meeting those standards. Regular and strict checks of technological standards and compliance with legislation on animal meal production should form part of a comprehensive safety concept.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group and my British colleagues, I very much welcome Mr Zappalà's tremendous work on a very complex text. I am pleased that the Commissioner has welcomed many of the amendments that were made. It is important to emphasise the crucial role that this particular piece of improved legislation will play in our overall strategy for the internal market. We witnessed the welcome launch this week, by the Commissioner himself, of proposal on the internal market for services. Clearly the cross-border delivery of professional services by people whose qualifications are mutually and unimpeachably recognised, in a manner that addresses the issues of quality and consumer protection raised by a number of my colleagues, is an absolutely indispensable part of that move forward to complete the internal market. We must be absolutely sure to see this revised proposal in that context. In that connection, more work needs to be done on Mr Zappalà's report. I and a number of my colleagues on this side of the House feel that keeping the five distinct levels of professional qualification and the definition of them is important. We have tabled a series of amendments clarifying the package of qualifications that will enable professionals to move into each of the levels that are to be mutually recognised. I hope that colleagues across the House will recognise those particular qualifications. The other important aspect of this proposal is that we need to encourage more professionals to set out their stall for mutual recognition and to accept a common platform proposal to work together to develop that. That is something that many professionals need to do. At this point I declare an interest as a professional engineer. We want to develop a common platform for Europe's engineers, but the one point on which I differ with the rapporteur is that his report seeks to impose a separate regime for engineers, devised from one particular point of view. That is premature. Europe's engineers want to work on a mutual recognition platform, but they do not want one imposed by this Parliament working in one particular direction. My colleagues and I will therefore be putting together a package of amendments that allows engineers to develop their own platform. I hope that is something which will command the support of a large majority of this House.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I think there are a few areas in which the European Union should make a commitment. Among them I would include, although these are not related to the White Paper, training, because performance depends on knowledge; research, because our growth depends in part on innovation; and transport, because the sustainability of our development depends on the quality of transport. That is why the Union needs resources. It needs money. The idea of a European fund is therefore not a bad idea. I still remember what Jacques Delors used to say: we need a great European loan in order to carry out great work. Naturally, that is out of date today. It sounds rather old-fashioned, but economics is not a science. Sometimes old ideas return, and just because Mr Keynes has returned to an old way of thinking, that does not mean the idea is bad. Beyond this financial aspect, I would like to draw your attention to three other aspects. First of all, Europe is enlarging eastwards, and our territory is therefore becoming unbalanced. I believe the Commission should keep an eye on all the outermost areas of Europe, whose geographic makeup is complex, composed of islands, mountains and peninsulas, and that we need to ensure that enlargement does not displace Europe too far towards the East. I am putting the case here for the Atlantic coast in the West of Europe, although I am sure you are sensitive to its needs. The second aspect is that Europe has many ports, many shores and many coasts. We must therefore spare no expense with regard to maritime navigation. We could probably do more. That would mean, with regard to maritime safety, that we should continue in the direction you have taken, which I believe to be the right one. Lastly, the third aspect: our regions. We need to make progress with our regions on the transport dossier. Regional policy might comprise tripartite contracts in future and, from that point of view, transport is a good subject associating States, regions and Europe as a whole. I believe that this White Paper and this task provide a good opportunity for the Commission to build all these links.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I would like to add a few considerations to the valid points already made by rapporteur Van Hecke. I, and the rest of my Committee in fact, can concur with him in every respect, and I also want to thank him for the constructive cooperation which resulted in all amendments tabled by my Committee being incorporated in the text. This will please the President as he will not have to sit through many votes. The considerations which I would like to bring to you today for consideration, Commissioner, are mainly of a practical nature. As recently as today, we read in our newspapers that the situation in the Ivory Coast has taken a turn for the worse once again, and that our own people who are there to report on the elections are running the risk of being involved in a new armed internal conflict. We question the coherence of the policy of the Commission and the Council, whose absence in this Chamber I once again regret. Although in September 1998, it was agreed not to provide any budgetary aid to countries at war, in March 2000 the Commission provided Rwanda with EUR 110 million, while this country is occupying considerable parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, in defiance of the peace agreements. I know that many who are involved in this conflict are themselves open to criticism. But do we then not apply stricter rules to Kabila’s DRC than to Uganda? Are we not stricter with Zimbabwe than with Rwanda? I have the impression that that is clearly the case because, in practice, countries which are even involved in one and the same armed conflict are being treated differently. Some are supported almost unconditionally by the European Union, the IMF and others. Other countries are given aid under strict conditions. This sometimes directly affects the power relations between countries involved in one and the same conflict. Let me make myself abundantly clear: I am against any form of budgetary aid given to warring countries, for this aid is invariably used to buy weapons, directly or indirectly. This is another weak area in our European policy. Arms exports deserve a mention as they are without a doubt implicated in the various conflicts. Not only is the illegal arms trade flourishing, but the controlled arms trade is also more interested in “fair competition” among arms traders than in the peace we are promoting.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I just want to tell Mr Corbett very briefly that he will see during tomorrow’s vote that the shadow rapporteur and I entirely endorse my group’s voting list but that we continue to oppose him on all the points I have mentioned.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I hail from a country abounding in water and I also have my home in Amsterdam near water. I can assure you that these boats make a hell of a racket and produce an awful lot of exhaust, much more so than cars. Why is that? Because we have considerably improved cars over the past ten, fifteen years. It is, in fact, on the initiative of the German and Swedish boat industry that this improvement is before us. The improvement, which will reduce noise and exhaust to some degree, has been adopted by the Commission. Unfortunately, we did not go far enough; we could have done much better, as Mrs Schleicher has already pointed out. The new technology is in place. Since it is not being used, we are forced to afford certain environmentally sensitive areas extra protection. I am also in favour of the internal market, but we should have used those very high standards that are technically possible. This will hopefully be done by way of the review clause. I am pleased though that the rapporteur has endorsed my amendments and that we are going to do something about lubricants. As a huge number of boats leak, a great proportion of lubricant seeps out. There is also organic lubricant, which also leaks, but which does not present a problem. Organic lubricant is used on the famous lake in the Alps, for example, which we talked about earlier, where it is compulsory. It should, in fact, be made compulsory, or at least be promoted, in many more cases. This should be feasible by means of a simple tax rule. We suggest that Member States consider this. I also suggest that the Commission considers this when we review this directive, because it would then be possible to provide for clean boats which hardly make any noise or hardly produce any exhaust, which do not leak, do not produce any annoying pools, that are not just ugly to look at but also harm the environment. All these boats combined emit an awful lot of this oil, and something could be done about it without too much effort. I hope that the Commissioner is prepared to consider this matter carefully during the review procedure.

Political group: Verts-ALE
First, two questions addressed to the Commission. Paragraph 9 of the draft report talks about the need to preserve the peace clause and special safeguard clause for a provisional period. I am very curious to know what your views are on the preservation of those clauses as the talks proceed. Secondly, paragraph 22, which Mr Seguro just mentioned. I understand that GATS do not necessarily affect publicly controlled utilities. I was wondering if you could perhaps expand on what the implications of GATS might be on utilities which have already been privatised. Now, two observations. Firstly, it seems to me that there is a unique opportunity for increasing common ground between the EU and the US as far as agriculture is concerned. This is principally because of the profligacy of the American Government in supporting American farmers to an ever greater degree over the last few years, in a sense removing the moral authority that the US has had in the past in accusing the common agricultural policy of being wasteful and distorting. I wonder if you really feel there is an opportunity for you and the US to find new common ground in the agriculture talks. Finally, you will not be surprised to hear that I wish to stress the importance of the latter part of paragraph 40. The Nice Summit might have been a halting step forward in terms of efficiency, but it is a serious step backward in terms of legitimacy and transparency as far as the conduct of the EU's trade policy is concerned. This is notably exemplified by the way in which the 133 Committee continues to take important and highly political decisions in the trade field without any published records or public account. In view of the lacuna which has opened up after the somewhat pot-pourri result of Nice, I urge both the Commission and the Council to look very favourably at the idea of an Interinstitutional Agreement in this field. If not, the moral authority of the whole European Union on transparency and legitimacy is seriously weakened in the WTO.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on a point of order. I had indicated that I wanted to speak before you closed the discussion on the agenda. May I ask that we consider, this week, a Commission statement on the decision of the UK government to introduce a discriminatory tax on non-British road hauliers. I need not remind you or the House that this is completely contrary to the Treaties which guarantee unhindered access to the single market. It is also contrary to Directive 99/62/EC which provides, and I quote, “that tolls and user charges may not discriminate directly or indirectly on the grounds of the nationality of the haulier, nor the origin or destination of the vehicle”. This impacts extremely seriously on Irish trade. 70% of Irish lorries, Irish transporters, must go to, or through, the UK land bridge to Europe. I should like to request a Commission statement and call on the Commission to use its powers to maintain the freedoms of the internal market and to ensure compliance with Directive 99/62/EC to which I have referred. It is urgent that before the proposed change by the British authorities is implemented we have a debate and the Commission indicates quite clearly where the law lies in this regard. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, a lot of fine words have been written following the summit in Tampere, but the prerequisites of these fine words’ becoming a reality and of our living up to the humanitarian principles behind them are that people must actually be able to get into Fortress Europe; that we must seriously begin to pursue a political strategy where policy on asylum can be distinguished from policy on immigration; and that we should begin to pursue a serious policy involving cooperation with UNHCR in solving Europe’s and the world’s refugee problems. I think it is time now to begin to see if Europe cannot introduce an immigration policy of its own, and I should like to urge the Council to do some thinking along those lines. It is also the case, however, that special situations demand special contributions – and a special fund was necessary to cover the special contribution we have been discussing. It will not then be projects already up and running which will have to pay for special situations, in the way that there is now a risk of Africa’s having to pay for the EU’s contribution in Kosovo. I should like to close by saying that I cannot support the idea of a scoreboard in the legal sphere. I think this is integration by the back door and a move in the direction of a United States of Europe by the back door. It is out of step with the democratic approach to things which I otherwise know from experience that Mr Vitorino is in favour of. If we are to go down that path, it must be by the front door.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Ettl’s report concerns the solvency of life assurance undertakings. I feel, Madam President, that Europe, which cares so much about the quality of life of the European citizens and the quality of all kinds of consumer goods, should force life assurance undertakings to respect this directive and subscribe to the declaration: ‘This is a reliable assurance company in accordance with the European directive’. For example, they could use the format: ‘Such-and-such assurance, reliable’, so that the citizens will know that the assurance undertaking uses its funds well. – Ettl report (A5-0212/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Spain will endow the Presidency of the European Union with a proposed set of priorities which shows ambition and will. European integration today means strengthening freedoms, isolating intolerance and making that integration compatible with the necessary fight against terrorism. The priority given by Spain to enlargement is not accompanied by the necessary commitments to guarantee the legitimate objectives of the Objective 1 territories. Vital to me, as a supporter of Andalusian autonomy, in order to safeguard the future, are the reform of the common agricultural policy, the debate on rural development, codecision in agriculture and food safety, in order to prevent extremely costly crises and alarm amongst consumers. The presence of the autonomous communities in the Council when issues relating to our interests and competences are dealt with will always be positive and enriching. Reflect the reality of Spain in Europe. Do not try to hide it, Mr Aznar. The autonomous communities are also States. A plural Spain in a plural Europe, creating more Union. Take that political and social reality further. Mr Aznar, you have not explicitly mentioned Morocco in your speech. Include it in your Presidency. Mr Aznar, please do not let the neutrality of the Presidency paralyse our legitimate Europeanist objective of cohesion. Let us be firm, but let us also talk.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, we must be glad about the establishment of this agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Chile and I also believe it is fair to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Salafranca, on his efforts and the results achieved. It is a very broad agreement which will undoubtedly increase commercial transactions between the European Union and Chile and this is positive at a time when many countries in Latin America are in a particularly difficult situation. It should be stressed that the total of tariffs on imports from Chile, relating to industrial products, will be restricted in 2006 and that in the agricultural field this will take place in 2012. The agreement also offers great possibilities in the fields of services and financial services, as well as on all aspects relating to investments. It is also positive that it includes a protocol on fishing enterprises. I have read the report of the International Human Rights Federation on the indigenous populations in Chile. These represent 4.4 % of the total population, or 13%, depending on the source of statistics. Of these populations, the Mapuche people, in percentage terms, are the most significant. The problems of the indigenous population relate to forest exploitation and the construction of large hydro-electric projects. We must remember that these problems were exacerbated enormously during the dictatorship of Pinochet. We are glad that the report contains explicit references to the protection of human rights and specifically mentions the rights of indigenous minorities. We hope that this Agreement will create greater transparency and mutual understanding, and that it will also recognise the rights of the indigenous peoples. Finally, while on the subject of Chile, as a citizen of Catalonia, I must acknowledge Chile’s reception in former times of Catalan exiles fleeing the Franco dictatorship.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Matti Wuori’s report has shown that the political campaign against censorship through violence must become a joint campaign within the framework of European foreign policy. After all, freedom of opinion and independent journalism are the backbone of democracy. It is important, therefore, to ensure that such information is recognised as freedom of opinion and a basic prerequisite for individual fundamental freedoms, and for collective and social basic rights. We can only achieve this in practice if censorship through violence is abolished. Yet many journalists continue to risk their lives or freedom in defence of the public’s right to information. What is the European Union doing? It has established deeper partnerships with countries which continue to practise censorship. It is very important that in the partnership and cooperation agreements and at the summits which take place in this context, these are used as instruments to make this a central political theme, and not merely a footnote, in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan. I would like to ask the Council and the Commission whether they are prepared for the issue of press censorship to be anchored more centrally in European policy in order to give fundamental rights, human rights, social and collective rights an opportunity to develop.

Political group: Verts-ALE