GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I have a point to make on the same subject. Time was obviously in short supply, yet the agenda went out on time and we knew how things were to proceed. I deeply regret that this happened and that the impression has now been given that Parliament was not prepared to accept the report. I would urge that we take up contact with the Court and arrange things in such a way that there is enough time for the Court’s report at the next part-session in Strasbourg. However, we also need to ensure that the President can attend and present his report. It is not acceptable for us to be forever postponing this. I would not wish there to be a major interinstitutional fall-out over this. It is quite usual for us to receive this report at the end of the year, normally in November. This could have been done in this part-session. It is a matter of deep regret to me that it could not be so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our report discusses a proposal amending Council Directive 96/53/EC with a view to authorising buses with a length of 15 metres for circulation within the European Union. I welcome this proposal. Indeed, at the present time, the maximum legal length of passenger vehicles varies considerably from one European Union Member State to the next: in 7 countries (United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece), the limit is 12 metres. In one country (Denmark), it is 13.7 metres. In two other countries (Sweden and Finland), it is 14.5 metres and in five other countries (with restricted use only in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, and unrestricted use in Belgium and Germany) it is 15 metres. This legal limit has not been explicitly harmonised at the European level, as it was not included in Directive 96/53/EC. To date, only 12-metre buses are authorised to circulate freely throughout all the territory of the Community. At the request of the Council of Ministers, the Commission has drawn up a proposal seeking to include passenger vehicles in Council Directive 96/53/EC in order to harmonise not only the length of rigid buses but also to create a clearer situation regarding removable attachments on buses and trailers. Even in countries where 15-metre buses are not allowed officially, in practice they are not refused or sent back at the border. In that sense one can say that this proposal formalises an existing situation. There are commercial reasons behind the extended length of buses. A 15-metre bus can take some 67 passengers, i.e. 16 more than a 12-metre bus. Obviously, some operators are driven to resort to longer buses by the imperatives of competition. It must, however, be pointed out that there is another way of increasing the number of seats per vehicle and that is to use double-decker buses and coaches. At the same time, introducing larger buses would make it possible to reduce the number of buses on the road, thereby reducing damage to the environment. In order to guarantee the safety of vulnerable road users and as far as possible to prevent problems relating to the existing road infrastructure, the proposal provides for limits, applicable to all buses, on admissible outswing when turning. Clearly, it will take time to implement such adaptations. That is why I think it wise to allow reasonable transitional periods that will enable the production facilities of the 15 Member States to adapt to the new criteria, thereby avoiding distortions of competition. In voting, therefore, I have attempted to reconcile respect for the environment, imperatives of completing the internal market, and to take account of the new restrictions placed on vehicle manufacturers.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – Mr President, the industry committee, after much discussion and serious consideration, is overwhelmingly opposed to the Commission's proposed ceilings, and this is across all groups and nationalities. The UN ECE ceilings were agreed by all our Member States, by the applicant countries and globally, in a protocol signed at Gothenburg as recently as November 1999. Why did the Commission come up with these even stricter and substantially more expensive ceilings only one month later? I understand that the groups, the whole Parliament, are split on this issue, between supporters of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and supporters of the industry committee's line. Members of Parliament should be aware of the serious implications for our industries and agriculture, for our competitiveness, for jobs and – yes – for people and our constituents if the Commission proposal wins through. The industry committee urges this House to vote in favour of the amendments which are tabled in my name and in the name of Mr Bowe. These are the amendments passed by the industry committee. The UN ceilings are quite ambitious enough for us to reach our internationally agreed targets in reasonable time. The industry committee wishes to see these limits fully and properly implemented across the European Union and globally. The Commission can then concentrate on ensuring this occurs, on perfecting the models that are used and perhaps come up with new proposals in two or three years' time on the basis of much more convincing arguments regarding the relevant costs and benefits. Support the amendments and the United Nations Gothenburg table of national emission ceilings.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, in the wake of 11 September the United States seemed to want to engage in a policy of broad partnership on an international scale. It paid off its arrears to the UN and held consultations with the Europeans and many others. However, since the State of the Union address, a hard unilateralist line has come to the fore. This change of course appears to create the risk of serious aberrations, judging by the Pentagon report on the revision of US policy on the use of nuclear weapons, which could include the possibility of a first strike against Russia, China and many other countries. This creates a difficult and disturbing atmosphere for transatlantic relations, which is compounded by the recent decisions on steel. At the present time, it is important that Europe should reaffirm its role as a major partner whose friendship and solidarity depend on reciprocity. This is essential if we want a balanced relationship between Europe and the United States, but it is even more essential for the stability of the world. Europe must emphasise the impossibility of dealing with the instability, the dangers, the imbalance of today’s world by merely wielding a big stick; it must emphasise that we also need to gain the upper hand in the struggle for peace, that we need to devote the same energy today to the fight against inequalities in the field of development and to defusing hotbeds of tension like the Middle East as has been applied to the struggle against terrorism. As far as steel is concerned, Europe must take a firm line. It is right and proper to issue a reminder, as Commissioner Lamy did this morning, of the need to submit to multilateral disciplines. It is also crucial that we do not hesitate to ensure that other governments comply with rulings that the WTO makes in favour of Europe. It will be obvious that I refer here to the Foreign Sales Corporation. And so I should like to ask the Commission if it has the intention of applying the retaliatory trade sanctions that the WTO has authorised us to impose, given the decisions that the United States has just taken on steel imports and the violations of trade agreements that the United States has already committed through its use of export subsidies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mrs Hermange has produced a valuable report and notwithstanding the comments by Mr Bushill-Matthews the emphasis remains on implementation. Implementation is key to the employment guidelines and to the Lisbon process. Why is it so important for us? We understand that not only have the Lisbon guidelines not been pursued and that progress is slow but also, as Mr Dimas commented, the new Member States have to do what we have to do and they have the same problems. Unfortunately size does matter in a situation where we must keep to the employment guidelines and yet overall unemployment and the budget deficit in the new Member States are roughly double that of the EU 15. Size definitely matters. That is why implementation is key, rather than new guidelines. Implementation is important, as some people have touched on – in Amendment 5 for example, concerning youth unemployment and as regards women in the workplace – but we also have to look at the issue of older workers, the rapidly ageing population of working age. Also, as was briefly mentioned by the chair of our committee, the job shocks that our regions are now facing, such as the outsourcing and offshoring of work – issues that this House is at last taking seriously – will have to be incorporated into the Lisbon goals. I am sure Mr Dimas will take account of that in his work in the coming months. The big issue here is to ensure not only that implementation is key, but also that there is better understanding among the main players – the trade unions and business organisations – of what the strategy is. This clearly does not yet exist in Member States. It is vital with regard to this issue, which is one of the last the Committee on Employment will address before the end of the mandate, that we register that the players concerned by this Lisbon goal are insufficiently aware of the strategy being pursued. Also important are the quality of lifelong learning and the regional impact of issues like equal funding and market discrimination. All of these issues are vital and must remain within the Lisbon goal and the employment guidelines. We must strengthen implementation. That is the key to today's debate and I welcome Mrs Hermange's report for that reason.

Political group: PSE
As we have already seen in connection with the integration of Western European States into the European Community, agriculture and food is one of the most complex areas of negotiation. Each enlargement has required long-term preparatory measures as well as transitional and special arrangements, often lasting for several years. I believe that we are right to expect the applicant States of Central and Eastern Europe to implement similar special and transitional measures. We should also do well to remember that, because of the great economic and social significance of farming and its output, a competitive agricultural and food-supply structure will be a vitally important factor in the success of these countries' transformation and restructuring processes. Agriculture is a domain which is largely regulated on the basis of uniform binding European rules and regulations. National powers are greatly restricted. Whether we like it or not, almost 50% of the EU budget has to be spent on the maintenance of this agricultural policy. It was decided in Berlin to allocate approximately EUR 3.1 billion a year to the gradual integration of the applicant countries for the period from 2000 to 2006, which amounts to a total of about EUR 21.8 billion, and to earmark a further EUR 58.1 billion for enlargement from the year 2002. From where we stand at present, this financial framework will not suffice in resolving the complicated processes involved in the forthcoming round of integrations, especially from the point of view of ensuring that they are socially acceptable. The financial framework for the enlargement of the Union, however, can only be facilitated through a rise in the current Member States' contributions and not through constant cuts in planned expenditure on the various Community policies. This is a truth that has to be told. The opposite approach would drive a wedge through the farming community and endanger the social development of rural areas throughout Europe. According to an old German saying, if the farmers are thriving the state will thrive. There is a great deal of wisdom in that saying, and it is still applicable today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am, of course, Mr President, very honoured by the Members’ consideration, for whenever I start to speak, increasing numbers of Members come from the corridors into the Chamber, as you can see is happening at the moment. With regard to this document, I would like to say that sailors and seafarers’ chief complaint about their job is that it is not stable and that when they arrive in port – as we all know, after a day ashore they cannot wait to get back on board – they have to wait months and months, sometimes years there. In my opinion, there ought to be an agreement for seafarers which stipulates eight or nine or six months on board every year and guarantees this rhythm of work throughout seafarers’ working lives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have written the report on the follow-up to the habitats directive and have, in the meantime, obtained the clear impression that many Member States really did not appreciate what commitments they were taking on when they adopted the directive. They did not appreciate how far-reaching it really was. This is one of the most important explanations for why progress has been so slow. However, the fact that progress has been slow does not mean that nothing is happening. In actual fact, an incredible amount is happening in this area, albeit not as much as we should like. When the directive is called into question, it is important to remember that what is happening is important, even if progress is slow. I also believe that this is an explanation for why insufficient resources have been invested in information and in dialogue with those directly affected by these protected areas, something which also creates partly unnecessary conflicts in many areas. I believe there is a lot to be learned from this. Obviously, the Member States have prime responsibility, both financially and legally, but, for the EU’s part, it is important not only to legislate and to collect funds – good though these activities obviously are – but also to publicise the many good examples there are and to use its own financial resources to encourage sound development. The situation we have is incredibly serious, mainly because of the extremely rapid impoverishment of biodiversity. Nor can we see a reversal of this trend. The work must therefore continue and, in the present situation, the directive ought not to be changed or reviewed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we all have experience of trade union movements, national parliaments and so forth. The reason for rules of procedure is that they guarantee democratic principles and obviously if, at some time, someone wishes to highlight a particular political problem, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so. If, however, a right is somehow abused, I am not sure if that abuse has anything to do with democratic ethics. I am speaking on a more general note here. In other words I am not sure if, in the final analysis, it has more to do with being obstructive than with proving that there is indeed a genuine problem. What causes me particular regret is that we all have experience of national parliaments and so on and this sort of abuse rarely takes place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Trentin report surely lays the initial bases for major future decisions on economic policy. These bases do, however, need to be more incisive and detailed in the proposals, so that they do not merely stand as statements of principle but can be swiftly put into practice. European leaders must apply themselves to rewriting the model for the social and market economy, bringing it up to date and rethinking it with greater emphasis on the social commitment. Signing up in general terms to innovation, training and flexibility and then backing out at the decisive moment is becoming not only disrespectful but surely detrimental to the working class as a whole. Today, to get out of this rut, class and corporate interests must be opposed insofar as they are not compatible with modern reformism. Rather than taking to the streets – or rather getting the workers to take to the streets – the trades unions should be asking themselves how much the workers took home between 1992 and 2000, given the productivity achieved by companies, which was certainly substantial. The proposal to turn employment around is based on a new bargaining structure and real pay flexibility. The new bargaining framework may be a regional or territorial system, half way between centralisation and company-level bargaining, with the aim of strengthening pay flexibility at company level where productivity is created and the individual contribution is valued. A large contribution may be made by company profit-sharing schemes, which allow ordinary shares in the company to be acquired up to a certain percentage of gross profits. It has been found that the companies with the highest profits are also those that use profit sharing to ensure that their best staff are paid effectively. In the USA, the companies that adopt profit sharing tend to have higher pay and higher returns. The pay of those who join profit-sharing companies goes up, while those that leave have to bear a substantial pay cut.

Political group: PPE-DE
For Portugal, and more precisely for the tourist region of the Algarve, recreational craft are a daily reality. It is in this context that I wish to express my unconditional support for the rapporteur, Mr Callanan and for the Commission proposal that seeks to make recreational craft more compatible with environmental standards in force, particularly exhaust emissions and engine noise, which damage both the environment of the region and the well-being of its holidaymakers. Making existing craft compliant with legislation will involve substantial costs that cannot be either disproportionate for boat owners or the sole responsibility of the shipbuilding industry. I therefore also consider the obligation for annual craft inspections to be unnecessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a sincere thank-you to Mr Garot for a constructive report that is very good at depicting today’s agricultural economy. Agricultural economics is a very important subject for the development of thriving rural areas. Thriving rural areas are entirely dependent upon the existence of profitable farms. In a Europe in which 50% of farmers are over 55 years of age and only eight per cent under 35, a whole new attitude to agriculture’s entrepreneurs is required. If I were now asked to give advice to people who had recently started up a farm, I would reply that they should make their financial calculations without reference to funding by society and not rely upon the good will of politicians. The report contains a number of points I cannot support. For example, it talks about ensuring ‘a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and stabilis[ing] incomes with a view to maintaining farming activity throughout the European Union’. A second point emphasises the importance of ‘maintain[ing] the level of public support for agriculture’ and the significance of creating ‘conditions that will guarantee employment’ and so forth. If these sentences, worded as they are, were read out to today’s farmers, they would leave them cold. In a country like Sweden, these words do not correspond to reality. Only 0.5 per cent of the population are now farmers. Restructuring is taking place incredibly quickly. The mid-term review has meant that everything has stopped, apart from the running down of agriculture. That is not of course something that can be blamed solely upon the European Community. A lot of the blame lies, for example, with the Swedish Government.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in support of the urgent procedure, and to specifically respond to this point, I would like to repeat that this is not a case of Parliament giving its opinion on a list. The matter in hand here is whether Parliament should support a decision made by the United Nations Security Council. This is an act adopted by the United Nations Security Council that the signatory States and the European Union – as representative regional power in some cases of signatory States – should support, but in which it cannot participate. Chapter VII(40 and41) of the United Nations Charter makes reference to the fact that the Security Council can implement any measures it deems necessary and that the signatory States must – for this is a mandatory act – apply them. Therefore, any amendment of these lists falls to the Security Council. What the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is asking – and we will implement it – is that the Council, as representative of the European Union, and the Member States that form part of the Security Council, keep an eye on the arbitration of procedures and mechanisms within the United Nations Security Council with the aim that, if there is any natural or legal person included in this list that should not be there, an exception can be made. (Parliament agreed to urgent procedure) President. – This item will therefore be included, under the procedure without report, in the vote at 12 noon on Thursday in Strasbourg.(2)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Mombaur’s report on the state of liberalisation of the energy, electricity and gas markets has the merit of summarising the various Commission communications on the issue. It also highlights some of the key facts in this matter, two of which I shall mention here. First, the Treaties provide for the creation of an internal market in the energy sector, which must be accomplished. Second, the achievement of this aim undoubtedly involves opening up the markets to competition, the process of liberalisation and division into separate activities relating to energy transmission, production and distribution. As the French Presidency gets underway, it must be noted – and as a French MEP this is not something I am terribly proud of – that France has taken a long time to transpose several European directives into its national law. In fact, it appears that France comes bottom of the class as far as this matter is concerned. The European directive on electricity was therefore adopted rather late by my country and only in its most basic form. More generally speaking, I, like the rapporteur, deplore the fact that there are other countries that wish to implement the directive only in its most basic form. And yet, as has already been mentioned –and I too should like to reiterate the point – full liberalisation, as carried out by other States in the area of electricity, has produced considerable benefits for the user: need we be reminded of the 25-33% price reduction in the United Kingdom or the almost 35% drop in Germany? This is why I believe that we should support the Commission in its undertakings and, as Mr Mombaur’s report suggests, set a specific binding timetable for carrying out the full liberalisation of the energy markets in the applicant countries and of course, first and foremost in the Member States. The ambition shown by the latest presidency of the Union for the advancement of Europe cannot simply stop at the defence of acquired or past situations. The completion of the internal market cannot be restricted to the European Union alone, which is why it cannot be put off indefinitely.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to point out a mistake in translation in Amendments Nos 18 and 30. This has already been notified to the relevant linguistic services, and it has also been mentioned here in the voting list that was distributed to us, but I would like to remind everyone of the matter, so that it is taken into account when people vote.

Political group: PSE