GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Mr Huhne, although we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted for your report – I am speaking of the Huhne report – that certainly does not mean that we supported it wholeheartedly. There are limits to our willingness to cooperate. I would like to repeat once again my group's objectives, which are market-oriented and user-friendly. The Directive on prospectuses should make the market easy to understand and make products transparent. We are in absolute agreement on that. Likewise, investors need serious information. Cases like Enron or Maxwell must not be allowed to happen again. What is clear is that this directive cannot of course prevent fraudulent descriptions of securities, but this directive and all the accompanying measures that we have already dealt with and are already available should help to make sure that in future we are dealing chiefly with serious products. My main criticism of the report before us, Mr Huhne, is that you as rapporteur have addressed only, or chiefly, big investors. However, the market is flourishing in the private sector, for small investors, and there are various quite different additional issues when it comes to SMEs. For example, for SMEs we of course need an attractive capital market and cheap equity borrowing, and our prime objective must be more security and quality for investors buying securities. Furthermore, it is absolutely vital that the scope of the obligation to publish a prospectus in Europe should be extended so as to achieve greater market transparency, and that is not yet included in the first reading. Unfortunately, for the time being we have only been able to agree on a market capitalisation of EUR 350 million. I hope that there will be some additional flexibility on this in the package. Otherwise, with such a high threshold SMEs will be largely if not almost totally excluded, thus severely limiting the scope of the directive. Mr Huhne, my group wishes to continue to play a constructive part in developing this directive, and I mean that very seriously. However, that will require greater flexibility on your part. That is ultimately what will determine how we vote on this issue and I hope I can give it my approval.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it must be some six years ago now that Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, assisted by Mrs Ursula Schleicher, put in a request and managed to overhaul the water policy in its entirety. It is not an easy topic and, in my opinion, the efforts made by Mrs Lienemann are very laudable indeed. The decision-making process concerning this framework directive on water has reached a crucial stage. The topic has been brought under the codecision procedure and as a result, we have been able to draft important, more stringent legislation as early on as at first reading. In fact, the common position which was issued at the end of last year was already a major improvement on the original proposal. It is also very hard to adopt policy in this respect because the discrepancies are so huge. I would also address the Spanish Member in this respect: in the North of Europe, we often face floods, but also polluted water, from industry, whilst the problem facing the Members in the South is often related to transporting water over long distances, simply to supply drinking water or water for agriculture. I would like to enter into the two elements of this topic in more detail. I would first of all like to focus on quality. The Netherlands is significantly affected by the European water policy. A very important component, to wit, one third of our drinking water, is extracted from surface water in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is located downstream, in a delta, which means that the quality of the surface water which heads our way is of key importance. Another important point of discussion is the standardisation of water quality. In a number of amendments, the proposed standards and especially the OSPAR standard for 2020 are called into question. Although I understand that, according to some, this standard is unclear or that it cannot be defended judicially, I do believe that we have to support it because we could then provide more precise standards in a conciliation procedure. I would now like to say a few words on quantity management. In his poem “Herinneringen aan Holland” [“Reminiscing about Holland”], a famous Dutch poet mentioned water too, which, with its never-ending trail of destruction, was feared and respected. In 1953, we suffered an enormous flood at a time when we were able to play a pioneering role in terms of dam technology. When our rivers flooded in 1990, we established that installing artificial works upstream affects the water-storage capacity downstream and can cause a great deal of damage. This means that in terms of quantity management too, we need to put in considerable effort to ensure that life upstream and downstream is not affected by it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am really pleased that this resolution has come about. I hope that this will encourage the Commission and the Member States to act on this issue. Some weeks ago, a documentary from Southern Sudan was shown on Swedish television. This documentary claimed that foreign investors and oil companies, including an oil company from my home country, Sweden, are being protected by troops which make use of child soldiers. These accusations have also been supported by Amnesty International, which has explained that certain oil revenues are also used to finance the civil war in Southern Sudan. There, they use child soldiers from Uganda, who are forced into armed conflict. We must put pressure on the international oil companies and on investors. We must, as is stated in point 8 of the resolution, strongly urge these companies to cease their activities in Sudan until a peaceful solution to the conflict has been found.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there is a general agreement that we clearly need some reform in some competition rules, and especially in their practical implementation. Regulation 1017 has been applied with only little modification since the 1960s. It is therefore understandable that the continued application of this regulation in its current form is no longer consistent with effective supervision of competition. We have to serve our consumers and our companies better with up-to-date rules of application. In my view, in a period of 30 years of implementation, EC competition law has reached a level where decentralising is not only possible, but almost necessary. We are all aware of the workload of the DG for competition and we understand that we have to do something to reduce it, or drastically increase the resources in Brussels. At the same time, we hear our voters reminding us how we should respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and that we should avoid centralising all decision making to Brussels bureaucrats. In that question, I totally disagree with Mr Titford. With the reform at hand we are able to achieve many of our objectives. Ending the current system of prior notification should benefit business and make more resources available to the Commission to concentrate on more serious infringements. Ex ante notification should not be replaced with a burdensome registration system. However, the shift to the new regime will not be an easy task. It is of the utmost importance to ensure that competition issues within the EU are treated similarly in all Member States. There are many detailed situations where legal certainty might be a danger. Personally I, and many of my colleagues from smaller Member States, are worried about the definitions of dominant position in the market. Companies from Member States – especially from the smaller Member States – should have equal possibilities to grow in the single market and to achieve a strategic position to compete with the global rivals. The Commission decision to say no to the Volvo/Scania merger was an example of the situation where the relevant market definition was maybe too narrow. The Commission should not declare that the market is national or regional if there is clear evidence that is not the case.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, without doubt, Tampere was a serious milestone and starting point for creating a European common area of freedom, security and justice. As the deadline approaches, we find that the glass is both half full and half empty. Without doubt progress has been made under the difficult conditions which the different cultures and approaches of the Member States created in the Council. As far as immigration policy is concerned, significant progress was made at the European Council in Thessaloniki, as you too mentioned, Commissioner; nonetheless, the question of recognising rights and the social integration of immigrants does not appear to be very high on our political agenda. And this certainly is not in keeping with everything we maintain about a Europe of humanitarian values and respect for human rights. The directive on family reunification, as edited by the Council, is essentially prohibitive and I think it important that the European Parliament take recourse to the Court of Justice on the question of the content of the directive. As far as asylum is concerned, I should like, Mr McDowell, Commissioner, to send my condolences to the Council for failing to adopt the two directives on the definition of refugees and the procedures for granting and revoking refugee status, which were also issues which the Greek Presidency advanced. In the meantime, it is a well-known fact that the Geneva Convention on refugees has been torn to shreds from one side of the European Union to the other. As far as combating international organised crime is concerned, I consider that no progress has been made in this sector, when thousands of women and children are shipped into the European Union every day for the purpose of exploiting them sexually. I think that this failure is due to the lack of essential operational cooperation between the police authorities in the Member States on combating this phenomenon which is an insult to our civilisation. Similarly, efforts by the Irish Presidency to bring to a close the matter of creating a personal database on immigrants with biometric elements, such as fingerprints and a digital photograph, will, I believe, create serious discrepancies in the matter of respect and control of the management of personal data. We hope, Commissioner, that new ideas and a new strategy will be put forward for Tampere ΙΙ.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am glad that Commissioner Prodi pointed out the disparity between the financial costs of this war and those available to meet the needs of humanity. There is something surrealistic – and in fact disgusting – about squandering money on a fully-contrived war and then handing out lucrative contracts to favourite local firms to repair the damage caused by that very war. (Applause from the left) I will, however, move on now to the economic part of the Spring Summit, focusing upon two aspects: progress in innovation and enterprise, and environmental protection. Every Spring Summit seems to me like a non-stop re-run of the Delors White Paper. That is also somewhat surrealistic. As far as research and development is concerned, let me be positive. I am glad that Commissioner Prodi is going to look at the EIB because, frankly, that institution is inefficient and ineffective in aiding those firms which could be innovative and competitive if they just had that helping hand. Good for him. As far as environmental protection is concerned, let me highlight intelligent energy, for which I am the rapporteur in this Parliament. This is a programme that was presented many months late by the Commission – it should have started in January this year. That is not efficient, and it is most certainly not competitive and dynamic à la Lisbon Declaration. This programme, I am sad to say, has been cut by the Council. As rapporteur, I am currently weighing up whether to accept a reduced programme which will actually happen or whether to argue for what should happen. Let us be clear that we are not matching our words with deeds.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we in the Confederal Group of the / think that this is a very good, clear and precise example of a situation in which the precautionary principal should be applied. There are very clear warning signs with regard to the risks associated with phthalates. Experiments on animals show that phthalates cause damage to the liver, kidneys and testicles. With this in mind, it would be totally absurd to allow these substances to be used in toys, which children can put in their mouths – something children very often do. These substances, phthalates, are a very large constituent of the toys concerned –and quite large percentages may be present in them. It is clear that these substances will leak out and that children will then ingest them via their mouths. It is also completely absurd to believe that a warning label would be sufficient when it comes to young children. It is obvious that children who are only a few years old cannot assimilate a warning text. Once they have the toy in their hands, it is, as it were, too late. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to implement as extensive a ban as is possible in this case. The Commission's proposal is also completely insufficient for this. A ban is already in place in several Member States, as several speakers have already mentioned. If the legislation is now too weak in this area, there is a risk that the Member States that have taken steps forward in this area will have legislation forced on them that is worse than what they already have – according to the bizarre logic that exists with regard to the single market, i.e. that the market is always put before considerations relating to health or the environment. I consider that this would be extremely unfortunate. The rapporteur for this report is a member of the Swedish Moderate Party. We are usually clear political opponents – I am a member of the Swedish Party. Our opinions differ also in this case, but I also know that Mr Arvidsson has been subjected to quite a lot of pressure and harsh criticism from sections of his own Group because he has not been sufficiently industry-friendly. I think it says something about him that he has resisted some of this criticism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are the only true political think-tank in the European Union and so we ought to safeguard the priorities set out in Agenda 2000 which the first budget endeavoured to override. It was wrong to introduce cuts in agricultural and social expenditure and in external actions concerning third countries. New policies need new resources. A total reform of the financial perspectives is essential. Sadly, we failed to include appropriations for natural disasters in the budget just as we failed to allocate appropriations for the accession procedures of Malta and Cyprus. I am not an economist, I am a politician; however, I would just like to make mention of the exceptional work of Mr Bourlanges and the other corapporteurs which I hope will help in reviewing certain issues so that we can assess the extent to which the Commission implements those political decisions in the budget and whether their implementation does in fact achieve the desired results.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, many of us remember when Parliament asked Mr Verheugen if we were not engaging in double standards when it came to nuclear safety. We make certain demands of the candidate countries and none of ourselves. I congratulate you on the honesty of your statement. I am convinced that the peer review to which you refer is necessary for nuclear safety. You did not, however, state, Commissioner, whether countries will definitely be able to refuse to receive waste they do not want. The ability, in the future too, to be able to refuse other countries’ nuclear waste has been one of the disputed points. When it comes to the agreement concerning Russia, we know that a debate is under way about what is waste and what is nuclear fuel. Euratom and the Commission have been convinced that Russian standards and administration do not in any way fulfil our requirements. What will the agreement in question look like? Will you be able to guarantee that we too shall not be exporting what is referred to as nuclear fuel under unacceptable conditions?

Political group: ELDR
The draft budget for 2004 confirms the trend towards reducing the size of the budget, in evidence since 1997. This draft budget is the equivalent of less than 1% of Community gross national income (GNI), despite the fact that it is the enlargement budget, with greater requirements in terms of social and economic cohesion, and despite the fact that the EU is experiencing an economic recession. Thanks to the acceptance of Agenda 2000, the restrictive financial framework of the Copenhagen Council and the consequences of the constraints imposed by the Stability Pact, which directly affect the implementation of the budget, the budgetary procedure has become a bargain basement where inconsequential issues are debated and where the policy pursued is one of transfers, cuts and redistribution of funds. All of this reduces budgetary transparency. We regret that the creation of a budget line of EUR 20 million for the reconstruction of Palestine has been rejected, given the deterioration in the living conditions and infrastructure of the people of Palestine. We do, however, welcome Parliament’s approval of our proposal requesting that the Commission maintain the level of funding for East Timor, bearing in mind the ongoing need for reconstruction in that country and the international undertakings signed with it. Reparation should, therefore, be made for the unjustifiable 70% cut proposed by the Commission, which has deleted the specific budget line for East Timor.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I rise as a member of the Mashrek Delegation, to mention to the House that since the last part-session there has been an announcement by His Majesty, the King of Bahrain, that the national parliament, which was suspended in 1975, will at last be reconvened later this year. I wonder if you, Mr President, would write to send fraternal greetings and to say that this Parliament looks forward to establishing direct contact with it at an appropriate time. Meanwhile, to share with colleagues another piece of news about that, I am sure that everyone would be delighted to hear that, in these very first elections in October, women will be entitled to stand for the first time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin with a timely and relevant saying. It goes, 'The culture of peoples is measured in terms of their love for trees' – and I would like the peoples of the European Union to demonstrate this. When we talk about forests we are talking about one of the most important ecosystems on Earth given their wealth and importance for the international community, since they offer both productive and protective services. The European continent shows the general characteristics of a region located in the planet’s northern hemisphere and has forests with highly differentiated coniferous and non-coniferous species which reflect the regional biodiversity and bio-climatic wealth of the old Europe. In view of all of this, we must recognise the importance today of the report by Mrs Redondo Jiménez for nature in the European Union. I believe there are various reasons for this. On the one hand, the report considers in a general sense the general actions necessary to prevent the deterioration of Community forests as a result of atmospheric pollution and insists on implementing a specific European Union policy to combat forest fires, which are one of the factors threatening the survival of the forests. Furthermore, it specifically recognises the ecological wealth of certain European regions, such as the so-called outermost regions, in which certain forest ecosystems stand out, which in some cases are genuine natural botanical museums, as in the case of the region I come from, the Canary Islands, where forest observatories should be established in these unique Macaronesian islands, one of the bio-geographical regions of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) with the greatest biodiversity in the European Union. But all of this could come to nought if the Commission does not allocate the funding needed to adopt the measures necessary to achieve an appropriate European policy on forests. I congratulate the rapporteur on her sensitivity to the problem of forests and on her courage in defending the Community forests.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to congratulate Mrs Swiebel on her outstanding work. I also find it disappointing that 13 of the 15 Member States appear not to have honoured their obligation to report periodically on the human rights situation in their countries to the international supervisory committees set up for this purpose. As the European Union, we have to set an example, otherwise our credibility with third countries will be in jeopardy. As the chairman of the Intergroup for Regional and Minority Languages, I would like to emphasise how important the use of regional and minority languages is to people. Language forms part of our personal and cultural identity and is thus one of our fundamental rights. It is the most important means of communication between people. Encouraging the use of minority languages reinforces social cohesion at regional level. I have therefore voted in favour of paragraphs 66 and 68. It is the first step. According to Article 149 of the Treaty on European Union, the European Union’s task is to support linguistic diversity. This is not enough: we urgently need a legal basis for regional and minority languages in the Treaty. Language is an important part of our cultural heritage, and it would be a sin if regional and minority languages were to be lost on account of neglect and suppression. - Pirker report (A5-0449/2002)

Political group: ELDR