GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, one major contribution which the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights made to this report is the emphasis on access to environmental information as a right, not a concession. We also contributed the clause which says that the standards for Member States should also apply to the EU institutions. The contribution from my committee on practical arrangements incorporated in the final report includes a number of amendments which I am glad were taken up by the Environment Committee. I am talking for instance about the inclusion of nuclear fuel and energy and of financial as well as economic analyses, the establishment of accessible registers or lists of available information, the idea that the applicant cannot be charged more than a reasonable cost, which is the actual cost price of collecting the information, and the insistence that there must be a harm test for exceptions, i.e. harm must outweigh the benefits of disclosure. But as far as the scope of the proposal is concerned, I am rather disappointed, if not surprised, at the suggestion that the UK Government, British Labour and Conservative Members sought to exclude private companies whose activities affect the environment. This is the kind of loophole that allowed the previous Conservative government to exempt the privatised water companies. Those amendments failed but I am concerned that the amendment which did go through on Article 2(2)(c) might limit the scope too much. One of the purposes of the new proposal was to close up these previous loopholes which allowed privatised utilities to escape the obligation. The Commission text clearly covered privatised utilities. Does the Commissioner think the amendments on Article 2(2)(c) that were adopted by the Environment Committee ensure that privatised companies which supply gas, electricity, water and so on will still be under the obligation to supply this information?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in view of yesterday evening’s statement by the Commission, which went a long way towards acceding to Parliament’s wishes on this issue, I too would like to recommend that we hold a full vote, including on the legislative proposal. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0384/2003) by Mr Sacrédeus, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community action programme for bodies promoting reciprocal understanding of relations between the European Union and certain non-industrialised regions in the world [COM(2003) 280 C5-0350/2003 2003/0110(CNS)] (Parliament approved the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0368/2003) by Mrs Rühle, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community action programme to promote active European citizenship (civic participation) [COM(2003) 276 C5-0321/2003 2003/0116(CNS)] Before the vote

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we simply have a few translation problems in this area too. We consider the English version to be the original text. To give you an example, in both paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Dutch and German versions, the equivalents of the English words: “in so far as” have been omitted. This is why I would ask you to consider the English version as the original version.

Political group: PPE-DE
British Conservatives have consistently opposed a Common Asylum and Immigration Policy and believe that these policies should be determined by Member States. The British Conservatives will therefore vote against this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the UCITS directive has been an enormous success since it entered into force on 1 October 1989, mainly thanks to the excellent protection which it offers investors. The directive and the reputation which UCITS enjoy with investors have allowed the investment fund industry to multiply its assets in the European Union fivefold. There has been a strong increase in cross-border marketing of investments within the European Union and the directive itself is used as a model for legislation throughout the world. However, the directive is ten years old and, now that the markets have developed and more and more sophisticated financial products are available, it is somewhat outdated. The Commission proposals being debated here will give it the face-lift it needs. I share some of the concerns expressed here, especially by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, but this face-lift would be even more successful if the funds which simply reproduce a stock exchange index, and which are therefore managed either passively or not at all, and the funds which use an index as a benchmark for an actively-managed fund were treated in the same way, if only to allow medium-sized undertakings listed on the stock exchange but not included in the stock exchange index better access to the capital market. In addition, investors often have better protection with an actively-managed fund. My Amendment No 47 is therefore a warning for amateurs. As far as the proposal for a new provision limiting investments in the same group to 15% is concerned, I would like to stress that, apart from the fact that this limit is too low, the text does not define the concept of a group. This concept does not exist under European law because it is impossible to implement and equally impossible to control in practice. I shall therefore vote against this proposed amendment. To conclude, Mr President, allow me to remind the House that the directive needs a makeover which will make UCITS even more attractive, but it does not need to be strapped into a European corset which will squeeze the life out of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am pleased that there has been a satisfactory outcome to the conciliation procedure with regard to the important report dealing with numerous technical issues on water policy, an outcome which we owe to the persistence, competence and motivation of our rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann. Over the next quarter-century, we will make more progress in this field in the protection, good management and renewal of this resource than in the discovery and exploitation of new deposits. I would like to make two points to emphasise the importance of integrated water management: - firstly, I would like studies to be carried out on the establishment of a federal “water and environment” management system in the various countries at European Union level, - second, we must ensure that the proposals of the directive are implemented and encourage them, not only at European Union level, but also in the aid that we give to third countries in the form of 'water' projects, the impact of which lies in a hydrographic ecosystem affecting the countries of the European Union, but also those that are part of the MEDA agreements, for example, which must be taken account of in the MAP projects and even in others, like the Upper Nile basin or Switzerland.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my colleagues, on behalf of my group I thank the rapporteurs for the preparation of their fine reports, and also for the good outcomes in conciliation. These statutory proposals belonging to the 'Erika I' package contain essential measures for the increasing of marine safety. These matters have also made reasonably rapid progress, and in conciliation the essential changes to the texts demanded by Parliament have been incorporated. In the case of the classification societies, the Community's authority needs to be increased with regard to the approval and control of these societies. As the rapporteur stated, the classification society must not be under the authority of the owners or builders of the vessels, or of others engaged in commercial activity in the sector. Inspections of vessels must also be increased. Extended inspections must be directed specifically at vessels which represent a risk. In the case of vessels on the 'black list' which are associated with a high risk, the criteria for entry of the vessel to a port must be stricter. In order that accidents can be prevented in advance as effectively as possible, we need an advance notification obligation for vessels and mandatory inspections of high-risk vessels. The port control directive will improve the uniformity and effectiveness of the inspection procedure of port States. It is appropriate that vessels be furnished with Voyage Data Recorders in future, and that access to EU ports can be denied to vessels which are clearly in a poor condition. An accelerated phasing-in of double hull vessels must be managed in such a way as to avoid generating insurmountable problems with the scrapping of ships and the building of new ones. At the same time, the flexibility of oil transportations must be safeguarded. The safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution may be promoted by the flag States enforcing the currently valid conventions so as to make them obligatory. Along with the further tightening of regulations, care must be taken that the decisions to be made are realistic and feasible. One of the points of emphasis of the EU's White Paper on transport is the favouring of water traffic in transportation. Because of its environmental friendliness, water traffic is indeed very suitable for heavy goods transportation. In the event of accidents, however, water routes are highly vulnerable, and environmental damage recognises no borders. For this reason, decisions made only within the Union are not sufficient; instead, questions of responsibility for marine safety must be dealt with on a worldwide basis. We need international agreements which also involve (for example) Russia, whose vessels will in future be sailing more and more in the world's seas via the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I simply wish to thank the Commissioner for the information he has provided us with and the Commission in general for the work it has done, in particular ECHO, to alleviate this situation which is very worrying from a humanitarian point of view. The High Commissioner, Mr Ruud Lubbers, used the word ‘unacceptable’ and I would add politically sordid. If the political explanation for this unacceptable, from a humanitarian point of view, situation is donor fatigue, it must be said that some donors are fatigued by really very small sums. If there is any other explanation, this is all the more sordid, because there are much more worthy and, above all, effective ways to apply pressure than to make women and children suffer as a result of the issue of food aid. In summary, thank you very much, Commissioner, for your information and your work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to say the following to you: there have been many relocations by multinationals in Portugal; unemployment today stands at alarming levels, with more than 500 000 people unemployed in a country whose economically active population is less than five million. I think that this demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. The case of Bombardier in Portugal, however, formerly known as Sorefame, constitutes a real economic and social crime because this is the only company that we have in the railway carriage manufacturing sector, which uses high technology that has been developed over the years, because its closure renders our country entirely dependent on other countries and because, with these workers becoming unemployed, we will lose knowledge that has been built up over decades. This is an economic and social crime. I wish to ask, Commissioner, how can the European Commission claim to be committed to combating poverty, to creating jobs, to building railways and to environmental, economic and social development, when it allows this to happen with a Canadian multinational in a country like Portugal, which is experiencing serious economic and social problems?

Political group: GUE-NGL
The conclusion that Hannes Swoboda reaches in his report on the Commission proposal regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, namely that we should reject the document presented by the Commission, has my own and my fellow group members’ full support. We go along with the rapporteur’s argument that the ceiling on the volume of traffic on transit routes through Austria must be maintained because the original aims of Protocol No 9 on road and rail transport and combined transport in Austria have not yet been achieved. These aims involved the reduction of nitrogen emissions and noise levels and the improvement of road safety. Instead of progress towards these goals, we have seen a steady rise in the number of journeys, which rose by 16% between 1993 and 2000 on the main haulage route through the Inn Valley and the Brenner alone and by 52% in Austria as a whole – in other words, a total of 580 188 additional journeys! The EU ceiling of 40 milligrams of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre is constantly being exceeded by more than the tolerance margin in readings taken at the Vomp measuring station on the A12 autobahn. The same applies to the other Alpine passes that are crossed by transit routes. Despite a few reductions in pollutant emissions that have resulted from technical improvements to heavy goods vehicles, the overall level of carbon dioxide emissions has risen. If the original aim of continuous and sustainable reduction of pollutant emissions is to be achieved, the number of transit journeys by heavy goods vehicles must be reduced. For these reasons, we advocate rejection of the Commission’s proposal. To add another proposal to our debate, let me say that efforts should be made to follow the Swiss example and create rail links for the transport of heavy goods vehicles through Austria. - Motion for a resolution on the enlargement process (B5-0538/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The report acknowledges enormous disparities between regions, which will inevitably worsen as a result of this round of enlargement, that strengthening economic and social cohesion is an obligation under the Single Act, and that structural investments in the cohesion regions benefit the Union’s other economies. It does, however, deem 0.41% to be an acceptable minimum level for the allocation. The report insists on retaining the 'expenditure target' system and on the N+2 rule, it issues warnings about industrial restructuring and relocation; it states that companies that have benefited from Community aid should not be entitled to receive new funds when they relocate, and that State aid should not be an incentive for companies to relocate. It also calls for more effective monitoring of the ways in which the Funds are used and for a more focused strategy with regard to industrial restructuring and its social impact. It confirms support for regions that have suffered as a result of the ‘statistical effect’, it has adopted amendments that we tabled to eliminate the expression ‘temporary phasing-out’ and to provide phasing-out support for current Objective 1 regions; it calls for the special status of the outermost regions to be preserved and for specific programmes to be kept on, even if they are no longer in Objective 1 regions. It has adopted our proposal for regions that suffer permanent handicaps. It seeks to ensure specific proposals and suitable funding for employment as well as support for small and micro-businesses and for training, particularly for adults. We insist that the ‘statistical effect’ should be extended to the Cohesion Fund.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, some speakers in the House today have said somewhat critically that this discussion is dominated by ‘emotions’. I think that it is a healthy sign in the House if it really is emotions that are setting the agenda for the discussion when children’s health is at stake. It is better for it to be emotions that govern this discussion than for it to be industry! In our private lives, in our own homes, we take all the safety precautions we can in order to take care of our own children. We put safety locks on the doors, we put barriers in front of ovens etc. because we know that it is dangerous to be a child. I think that we should behave in the same way even when we are in this House. We have enough information to make the necessary decisions. It is not the children who must prove that toys are dangerous but the producers who must prove that they are in fact safe. This is a principle which should apply to all consumer protection, but particularly protection in relation to children. Several speakers here have said that we know that these substances can be hazardous to health. Several Member States have already imposed a ban on phthalates in toys for children under the age of three. The precautionary principle must be applied! Hopefully, more nations and countries may also realise that this is necessary. The Commission's proposal is neither sensible nor sufficient. I can only imagine a situation at a play school or a nursery school where the nursery teacher has to try to keep a check on which children are under and which are over three years of age as well as which children are allowed to put what in their mouths in accordance with all the experiments the Commission is trying to include. It is, of course, possible for the Commission to issue a special directive concerning what nursery school staff, or other adults, should do when they have more than one child to take care of. The only sensible solution is a ban, a total ban, when it comes to toys for children under three years of age. Our aim must be to limit the occasions on which we subject ourselves and our children to dangerous chemicals. In this case it is taking an unnecessary risk to permit the use of chemical substances in toys which affect those that are smallest and most vulnerable in society.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in my previous life I ran two manufacturing businesses, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands. As the UK business grew, we invested in more people, as the Dutch business grew we invested in more machinery. The simple reason for this was that social costs in the Netherlands were just too high in comparison. I am in favour of social protection, I am in favour of the original Commission document, but I do not want to see people priced out of jobs because social protection costs become unrealistically high. That is why in committee I proposed some form of business impact assessment, so that costs and risks to jobs could be taken into account, and the EPP-DE Group supported this amendment. But I must record that other groups, led by the Group, guided by my countryman, Stephen Hughes, voted this out. I accept that Mr Andersson's report is very well-intentioned, and I respect him for the work he has done, but in my view the way the report defines and promotes social convergence would drive social costs higher throughout the EU. This would put more jobs at risk and also put at risk the credibility of this House by showing how remote we are from the real world. I therefore urge this House to reject the full report and let the original Commission proposal, which was very well-balanced, stand unamended.

Political group: PPE-DE
I warmly welcome Mr Poos' report on Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. I note that Cyprus is making good progress in incorporating the acquis communautaire thus allowing accession negotiations to move swiftly along. Like the rapporteur, I too welcome the Helsinki Council agreement not to make a solution to the division of the island a pre-condition for accession. There is no doubt that the accession of Cyprus to the Union will strengthen the influence of the European Union in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. From the economic point of view, the accession of Cyprus should not pose major problems, since it is a country with a market economy and a high standard of living. I look forward to seeing Cyprus among the next group of new members. - Stenzel Report (A5-0243/2000)

Political group: PSE
Breast cancer is the principal cause of death among women. In 2000, in Europe, this disease of the industrialised world lead to the death of more than 79 000 people. In Belgium alone, no less than 10 000 new cases of breast cancer and 3 500 deaths are recorded every year. There is a lot of work to be done. That is why I voted in favour of the report by Mrs Jöns, which is very comprehensive, sometimes too much so, and proposes some interesting routes for reducing the death rate by 25% by 2008. In order to achieve this, the report rightly stresses identifying the risk factors, coordinating national policies and screening programmes. It is crucial that mammograms are free across the Union for women between 50 and 69. It is just as essential to seek out women who are not so well informed and less accessible. Mobile screening programmes, which have been running Belgium in the province of Liège, for more than ten years, have enabled more than 70 000 people to be examined. So many women who, without the mammobile, would not have automatically done the test at a doctor’s surgery or hospital.

Political group: ELDR
First and foremost, I must thank both our rapporteur in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mrs Hieronymi and the whole of the Committee for the high-quality work they put before us and their interesting reaction to the third report from the Commission to the Council, the EP and the ESC on the application of Directive 89/522/EEC “Television without frontiers”, whose main objective is to put a legal framework in place to promote the free movement of audiovisual broadcasting services within the single market and to guarantee certain general interests such as the promotion of cultural diversity and the protection of consumers and of minors. Many reasons can be given to justify my vote in favour of this report; I shall simply mention them. Taking into account that 98% of homes have a television, the report firstly and quite rightly points out that the social impact of television is becoming increasingly significant, especially for children. Meanwhile, regarding the protection of minors, the report asks the Member States to step up their dialogue, to define common solutions without threatening their independence in terms of national restrictions for the protection of minors. This can be put in another way by saying that the audiovisual sector plays an essential role in democracy and informing the people, and is therefore emerging as a reflection of the level of freedom of expression and plurality of ideas that can be expressed and understood. Moreover, the report also highlights the extent to which the audiovisual sector is a leading sector both in the economy and for employment in the European Union: in 1997, the audiovisual sector employed more than a million people in Europe and its revenue should increase by 70% between now and 2005. (Speech cut short pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure) – Berès Report (A5-0307/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr MacCormick has now withdrawn Amendments Nos 18 and 12, but Amendment No 10 deals with the same subject. Will the latter be withdrawn accordingly, or will it be kept?

Political group: PSE