GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as we have heard, thank heavens that there were only a few amendments the Commissioner could not accept! In any event, I would ask, on my own behalf and on behalf of my co-rapporteur, Mr Harbour, that it be referred back to committee and I hope that we will soon be able to bring the legislative package back to Parliament. (Pursuant to Rule 69, Parliament decided to postpone the vote on the legislative resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0193/2003), tabled by Baroness Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on progress in 2002 in implementing an area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the outcome of the European Council (Brussels, 20-21 March, 2003) (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on Iraq (Parliament rejected the joint motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0195/2003), tabled by Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit and others on behalf of the Group, on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0198/2003), tabled by Enrique Barón Crespo and Jannis Sakellariou on behalf of the Group on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0200/2003), tabled by Charles Pasqua and others on behalf of the UEN Group, on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0201/2003), tabled by Hans-Gert Poettering, and others on behalf of the Group, on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0203/2003), tabled by Francis Wurtz on behalf of the Group, on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0206/2003), tabled by Graham R. Watson on behalf of the Group, on the situation in Iraq (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Report (A5-0061/2003) by Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides (2002/2277(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0192/2003) tabled by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on amending Council Regulation No 2561/2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0048/2003) tabled by Diemut R. Theato on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control on the Commission Green Paper on criminal-law protection of the financial interests of the Community and the establishment of a European Prosecutor (COM(2001) 715 – C5-0157/2002 – 2002/2065(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President - Jové Perez report (A5-0045/2003)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I get the impression that the EU's way of conducting negotiations is listing to one side. It is one-sided in being guided by economic interests, which is actually out of the question. The Treaties require us to make sustainable development the model for all our policies, which means that we cannot carry out liberalisation without at the same time negotiating social standards and environmental norms. This leads me to form the impression in my mind that you are actually in violation of Article 6 of the Treaty. It is especially when one is presenting demands for liberalisation of water to seventy-two of this planet's states that one is negating the very social and ecological conditions that prevail locally. It is here that the principle of sustainable development must hold undoubted sway, rather than the economic considerations inherent in the ability to provide water if at all possible in the interests of shareholders. Decisions as to how to organise the water supply have to be taken on a local basis; they must remain with local politicians and must not be taken in response to external pressure. The EU must not stoke up the fight for the blue gold.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is good that this debate is taking place here today. After a year's work, the Echelon Committee tabled recommendations and requests. It is only good parliamentary control if we enquire, one year on, what has become of them. Allow me to make a preliminary remark. A few days after the debate that we held last year, there was the horrific attack of 11 September on the United States of America. There were two reactions to this. Some said that this proved that the interception systems were useless and that they ought to be abolished, while others wanted to put the secret services and their activities out to public tender. Both reactions are wrong! The majority of this House was convinced that strategic telecommunications controls could be a useful instrument for intelligence services, provided that legal safeguards and a proper system of checks and balances were in place. What happened on 11 September does not in any way change our demands for clear legal bases, for parliamentary control and for the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights to be complied with. Of the range of demands that we made, I should like to highlight the essential aspects for whose implementation the Commission is responsible, and will not therefore mention anything in the field of external policy or at international level. As Commissioner Liikanen stated, the Commission has done a considerable amount of work on IT security. If you take a closer look you discover that these are initiatives that would have been necessary in any case because of e-commerce and of the need to support the IT industry. Parliament had made precise demands, which – at least this is my impression, Commissioner – have not been implemented in full. Firstly, we wanted open source to be promoted as a basis for the encryption software so that we knew for sure what the software did. We wanted the Commission to help to distribute the open-source software so that we could be sure that no backdoors were being incorporated into the networks. The Commission is doing too little here. Incidentally, the Commission itself, to my disappointment, is not using open-source software either, and neither is Parliament. As far as protecting confidential information in the Commission is concerned, which is something that we have of course also looked at, Mr Liikanen said that considerable changes had been made here. This is to be welcomed. When we took a look at this in the Commission last time, they were still using encryption faxes, with some of the ciphers being generated in Great Britain! It would be good, Commissioner, if the Commission could offer to convince a few Members of the old committee of its current security standards by inviting them to the Commission to see for themselves. I understand that you cannot reveal any details in a public debate, but it would be helpful to us to know what has actually happened in this respect in a little more detail. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, consumer protection is an important objective and we need to prevent dishonest traders benefiting from the internal market in order to mislead citizens by offering them defective goods. Moreover, dishonest traders take advantage of the new technologies provided by the information society, thereby undermining consumer confidence in e-commerce. These problems do not only closely concern consumers, but also businesses and the economy as a whole. In order to protect consumers, therefore, we have to establish a body of clear, effective rules and also strengthen cooperation between national consumer protection authorities, by promoting information exchange and providing for the possibility for authorities approached by consumers to request the assistance of an authority from another country. It is precisely this second, important objective which the proposal for a regulation being discussed and voted on by Parliament this week seeks to secure. Current national systems are not capable of preventing and suppressing cross-border exploitation and existing informal networks face obstacles of a legal nature regarding, in particular, difficulties relating to the flow of information from one authority to another and even the lack of public consumer protection authorities in certain Member States. Moreover, the regulation lays down precisely the Member States’ obligation to designate a public consumer protection authority, which will be part of a European network. The authority of one Member State may request help from other members of the network in order to investigate possible infringements, to receive information and thereby to end exploitation by dishonest traders. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has provided some further guarantees in the proposal for a regulation, in order to avoid possible abuse of power by the national authorities, to protect confidential information held by businesses which is not strictly necessary to the investigation and to ensure that the requests for cooperation are reasonably justified and do not pointlessly impede traders. The proposal for a regulation, moreover, provides for procedures which are at times a little cumbersome and onerous for consumers and the public administrations, and risk making the costs far higher than the loss or damage suffered by consumers. This is why we oppose certain provisions laid down by the Council and the Commission which would greatly complicate the system, and if we have to adopt the regulation at its reading before enlargement, we shall ensure that it is reviewed, on the basis of experience gained, five years following its entry into force.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I would like to draw two points requiring clarification to your attention. I will deal firstly with Amendment No 15. This amendment highlights a procedure concerning the acquis communautaire. The Association Agreements concluded between the European Union and the candidate countries, and those which have yet to be concluded, should incorporate regulations banning discrimination against groups protected under Article 13. It is all the more crucial for this step to be taken if certain candidate countries have minorities that require protection on the employment and occupation front. Secondly: Amendment No 18. The amendment refers to the fact that many Member States have provisions in place that could lead to discrimination against homosexuals seeking employment. However, the amendment does not emphasise the importance of criminal law provisions in dealing with such behaviour. It takes the form of a recommendation, in as much as it states that the Member States should annul these provisions. In phrasing it this way, the principle of subsidiarity is upheld. This does not fall within Europe’s sphere of competence. I was slightly disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to get majority support for the need to set a limit on the storage of documents. I had proposed six to twelve months. As I see it, that would be realistic in operational terms. I worked for companies for many years. We were unable to achieve this. What we did manage to achieve though, and what pleased me enormously, was that we were able to make it abundantly clear that special regulations must be introduced for religious communities, because we must make it possible for people to identify with the idea behind and the fundamental aims of these communities. We scored a major common victory there, to my mind, and we also finally managed to secure regulations benefiting the physically handicapped. I am delighted that people have been so willing to compromise today, as indeed our voting has shown. I would like to thank you all again most warmly for your excellent teamwork.

Political group: PPE-DE
The EPLP will be voting for the Lambert report on social security because it seeks to coordinate social security systems for the benefit or ordinary Europeans who seek to work across the EU. This report coordinates but does not seek to harmonise either social security or taxation systems, which are the responsibility of Member States. The EPLP has not supported Amendment No 48 because it is outside the scope of Article 42, which deals with social security systems, and introduces the idea of double taxation. Similarly, Amendments Nos 1, 2, 43 and 45 seek to go beyond social security coordination and therefore could not be supported by the EPLP.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am not exactly sure if I am on the order of business. However, I should like to ask, if possible, for the vote on the directive on environmental liability which we are debating tonight not to be held at noon tomorrow but for it to be held at noon on Wednesday. I know very well, both from my group and from other political groups, that they are still discussing various issues relating to the vote, how it is organised, and so on. The deadlines were abysmal. So, if there is no major problem, I would be most grateful if the vote could be held at noon on Wednesday.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, our common goal is food safety and consumer health. I share all the views expressed by my colleagues in the Socialist Group. I would, however, like to draw the attention of this House and of the Commission to an often neglected aspect of this whole problem, i.e. the resignation of the parties responsible at the European, and more especially the national, level for the health and safety of consumers. Generally, authorities are slow to react. They do not always effect the necessary preventative controls. But as soon as a scandal breaks, public authorities go into overdrive, opening all the umbrellas they can, with the primary intention of covering themselves. This is the Dr Garetta syndrome, named after the official responsible for the contaminated blood case in France. Since then, the people responsible for public health no longer take any risks whatsoever. This is called the precautionary principle, in itself a valid principle, but one which authorises all sorts of aberrations if it is used by Ministers or officials whose only purpose is to cover themselves against taking any sort of responsibility. So bans are introduced with a vengeance, without any regard for confusion of the farmers or the shopkeepers who are doing nothing wrong. I do not have enough time now to expand upon the subject, but I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the need not just for preventive action but also for increasing the accountability of all the official inspectors, all the experts, so that the precautionary principle does not become a principle of refusing to accept responsibility on the part of those in charge of monitoring food safety and consumer health.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report before us is undoubtedly not the most exciting of those we are to discuss in this sitting. However, in saying this, I am not of course referring to Lord Inglewood’s excellent piece of work. We should congratulate him, and ourselves, on this. Much can be achieved when, as a result of the codecision procedure, the European Parliament’s work improves the Commission’s proposals at a highly technical level, as it has in this instance. This not only makes a positive contribution to the process of drafting regulations, it also enhances the prestige of the European Parliament. The argument for broadening the scope of the codecision procedure is therefore strengthened. As I said a moment ago, this report does not give rise to keen argument. That does not mean, however, that it lacks significance from a technical point of view. The proposal to update the directives on accounting is not only very important, it is in fact essential if the transparency of company accounts is to be improved. Traditionally, the valuation rules for company accounts stipulated that assets be valued at cost price, referred to as the historic value. This criterion was therefore invoked in the directives on accounting, as is logical in order to prevent the manipulation of accounts to present an inaccurate picture of a company’s status. The aim was to prevent company directors from skilfully revaluing entries under assets to produce a distorted impression of the state of their business. Incidentally, certain accounting irregularities which are not tolerated in company accounts, have been sanctioned in relation to the public accounts of a number of Member States, to allow them to join the euro. In this instance, the euphemism ‘creative accounting’ has been used in place of ‘irregularities’. However, these accounting criteria relating to historic value were not cast in stone. Furthermore, the financial markets today are highly complex and the use of sophisticated financial products is increasing. It is therefore necessary to replace historic value with fair value. This fair value, included in the proposal for a directive that we are to approve, is obviously not as fixed as permanently as the historic value, given that its limits are much more loosely defined. Its inclusion requires more precise instruments, as provided in the proposed amendments we will support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in 1999 we had the Mont Blanc tunnel disaster. Yesterday, we had another tragedy, in the St Gotthard tunnel. This chapter of disasters is certainly not coincidental, it is the human price we pay for basing our goods transport system on HGV transport and pursuing the maximum profit, which creates terrible risks. Since the Mont Blanc tunnel was closed, the Maurienne valley has had to absorb the weight of all the traffic and is suffocating as a result. The St Gotthard tragedy will lead to even more re-routed traffic for the valley to absorb. Even in normal times there are not enough crossing points. So we need to tackle the problem of transit transport. We have to look for global solutions. In this context, reopening the Mont Blanc tunnel would mean ensuring that the correct distances between vehicles are observed, that road traffic is regulated, that partial traffic bans are observed, that ceilings on lorry numbers are imposed and observed, that the limits laid down for lorry-drivers' working hours are observed and that safety rules are continuously monitored. Finally, it would mean undertaking to develop 'piggybacking' and making immediate use of the existing transverse lines, which are under-used. We urgently need to review the entire policy of goods transport in Europe. The Union must finance adequate investment to that end. I think that in sensitive areas we should give up road goods transport, which means that, as of now, we have to mobilise the necessary resources for speeding up the development of piggybacking. The European Union must now show the political courage to make new and bold choices. Thank you.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when the two planes crashed into the World Trade Center they demolished more than the twin towers. We also saw the destruction of the European Union's three pillars contrived at the Treaty of Maastricht and our response today requires a fully integrated approach involving trade, finance and security. The Ghent European Council showed that the Union enjoys both the capacity, and the will, to provide an increased sense of European security, solid in support of American self-defence, and sharing in the campaign to combat terrorism. This is a European Union increasingly active in its civilian role and far more present in the Middle East peace process. For us to succeed, we need to put aside our petty squabbles and the interinstitutional rivalries. The Commission and Council should reflect the impressive cross-party consensus that we have created in Parliament. In that context I would like strongly to congratulate the Belgian presidency on brokering such a successful deal on the setting up of the convention.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all cars can take zero-sulphur fuel, whether they are new or old. They do not have to be converted, there are no parts to be fitted or retrofitted. That is a big difference from the debate about leaded and unleaded petrol that we had a few years ago. So any car can take low-sulphur fuel and it has a positive effect, especially with older types of diesel engines. Zero-sulphur fuel reduces particle emissions from these older vehicles too. Most of all, however, we need zero-sulphur fuel because we want new technologies to come on to the market, not in order to reduce conventional emissions but to consume less. We need direct injection diesel engines and direct injection petrol engines that have a wide range of lean burn. With lean burn, where little fuel is used, the proportion of nitrogen oxide is greater and we therefore need particular technologies to collect nitrogen oxides in the exhaust system. Look at it which way you will, sulphur prevents that. To save fuel and reduce CO2 in the transport sector we simply need zero-sulphur fuel as quickly as possible. I cannot see, either, why a diesel vehicle with an almost negative particulate value – the air behind is cleaner that that drawn in at the front – is allowed on our streets while on the same street there are tractors and excavators giving off particles en masse because of the poor quality fuel. I believe these vehicles must be required to use clean fuel, too, if we want to cut particle emissions.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products is one of the most important elements of the common fisheries policy. I hope, even with the commitments made by the Council, that the latter takes due regard of the results of the debate and the Fraga Estévez report in particular. With regard to the contents of the report, I must congratulate Mrs Fraga Estévez. As usual, she has worked very hard and I particularly want to acknowledge the effort made to achieve compromises. As is to be expected, compromises do not satisfy everyone and this case is no exception. I am unhappy with one aspect of the report in that it proposes an extension of the limits set by the Commission for fishery withdrawals. Faced with increasingly scarce fish stocks, it seems absurd to fish to destruction and immoral to waste quality protein. This reflects one of the shortcomings of the Commission’s proposal which should have supplemented the COM framework with a mechanism to maintain the income of fishery workers. This would allow the effect of price falls to be limited and would therefore make recourse to the withdrawal and destruction of fishery products unnecessary. The Commission’s proposal lacks maturity and is dominated by inertia. There is inertia towards budget restrictions and in the regulation of foreign trade. This opportunity could have been used to establish a clear and transparent system of foreign trade regulation. For these reasons, I feel that the Fraga Estévez report is much more useful and my group therefore totally supports not only its efforts but, despite the reticence indicated in my speech, the compromise as a whole. Finally, we will also support the report by Mr Gallagher who I also congratulate.

Political group: GUE-NGL