GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our honourable friend, Mr MacCormick, has made a thorough and critical appraisal of the Green Paper on civil liability for defective products and he deserves our thanks for his work and for his cooperative contribution. I should just like to make a few more comments on behalf of my group on a number of necessary amendments on which both we and the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party reached extensive agreement in the run-up. I refer to the checks which your department needs to carry out, Commissioner Bolkestein, and the question of the burden of proof which, according to Article 4, rests solely on the injured party. My group believes the Commission should check if prima facie evidence and circumstantial evidence can also be taken into account at all levels at which evidence is taken. This is particularly important because the product world is becoming more and more complex and it is becoming more and more difficult for individual persons who have suffered damage to provide proof in this area. There is also the question of derogations from general manufacturer’s liability, especially the so-called development risk. We need to examine if these derogations are expedient and conducive to the balance between manufacturers and consumers. This applies in particular in the case of foodstuffs and medication. We do not want to see the consumer alone bear the risks inherent in technical progress. In my view, applying the directive solely to private use and consumption is a questionable move. The Commission should consider if the directive should not be extended to commercial goods. The material damage sustained by a company is, in principle, no different from the material damage sustained by a private individual. And the smaller the enterprise, the heavier the burden of this unequal treatment. Harmonisation of laws at Community level would be in keeping with the purpose of the product liability directive, especially as increasing flexibility in the world of work is tending more and more to blur the clear distinction between the private world and the world of work. We also need to think about the way in which liability is statute-barred. It is clear from the case of BSE that a standard ten-year limitation on liability may be insufficient under certain circumstances. We could perhaps consider gearing the limitation period to the type of product. However, it is not only these individual points which are important; we also need to seize every opportunity to harmonise product liability still further in the form of comprehensive consumer protection in the European Union. If we supplement the MacCormick report in this direction, the European Parliament will have done a good job in the eyes of the consumer. Which is why we have been elected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for me it has been a real privilege – and a surprise – to attend this conciliation procedure and to witness first hand the resistance and difficulties we have had to face in order to make progress. This is demonstrated by the excellent work of Mrs Smet, and also Mr Provan and Mr Rocard. I would also like to thank the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou, her department and so many people – also the Portuguese Presidency – who have allowed Parliament, like Churchill, to set a milestone in the construction of a social and more humanitarian Europe. I am convinced that there is another reason for recommending that Parliament vote in favour of this report: the difficulties we have faced in making progress with regard to certain governments. I will be truly happy to see these sectors, which were excluded from the 1993 directive, provided with a recognised European regulation on working time, even if it does involve long and protracted timescales. However, we should not be dazzled by the light. There is no doubt that public opinion – and I too am concerned about this public opinion – does not understand why these procedures are so slow and why, with regard to the problem of young doctors or fishermen, we have not been able to make any progress. It is not acceptable – since we all agree that we cannot continue to ask these young doctors to work these exhausting hours and that we cannot continue to put our patients at risk – that we have not been able to make speedier progress. I hope that, in fact, the timescale will be nine years and not thirteen years, although it pains me to say that, as a Spaniard, I feel restricted by the fact that it has been my government which has insisted most on having this additional period. They may have requested this additional period, but we should take great care to ensure that they do not use it. Lastly, I would like to ask the Commissioner and the Commission, to monitor closely the application of the directive, so that in nine years time they do not ask for three more.

Political group: PSE
The common position adopted by the Council forms part of the aim of applying the private capitalisation approach to the financial resources of national pensions systems, in other words, submitting these enormous financial volumes to the methods of the capital markets and enabling the financial sector to speculate on them. Creating a single market for occupational pensions was one of the priorities of the ‘Lisbon strategy’, under the Financial Services Action Plan, which seeks to achieve the integration or liberalisation of capital markets in the European Union. The objectives of private capitalisation are clearly demonstrated in the lack of genuine prudential rules, in the liberalisation of investments and service provision at European level and in the absence of guarantees covering all risks, or allowing them only on an optional basis. The rapporteur himself, in his explanatory statement, sets the tone, by stating that this proposal will contribute to the development of the financial markets, acknowledging that the common position lacks balance between taking into account the social security of the beneficiaries and the aim of creating a simple framework for capital markets. Hence the adoption of amendments from first reading, which fall considerably short of what we would wish to see and which do not call into question the approach of the original proposal. This is the raison d’être of my political group’s proposal, which I supported, for an amendment seeking the rejection of the Council’s common position.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, every day that passes is punctuated by developments in the current crisis in the Middle East and every day that passes is a further indication, as if this were needed, that everything that happens in the South and around the Mediterranean is of direct concern to us, and affects our daily lives. When things go well in the South, peace is possible, democratic progress can be achieved, there is more economic development and less illegal emigration. In short, there is hope. When things go badly in the South, we have war, violence, fundamentalism – and this also affects the areas in Europe in which we live – not to mention the risk of a new oil crisis. Today, once again, we face the worst possible scenario. This is quite clear from looking at current events. Some of us have been saying all this time and time again for many years in this House. Unfortunately, for many years, too, factors such as the enlargement of Europe to the East, the Balkans crisis and wars have displaced the South in the minds of a great many Europeans, hence the repeated delays in Mediterranean processes and policies. We have seen cuts in appropriations and problems in harnessing these appropriations. The general negotiations are bogged down; there are delays in the negotiations for association agreements and even greater delays in ratification procedures. This creates the most serious disappointment in our partners in the South and our political influence, that of Europe, has suffered as a result, even though we continue to be, in spite of everything, the foremost financial backers of the South. We must therefore, as several of us have said this afternoon, immediately tighten up our political objectives with regard to the South, support the appropriations that have been committed, expedite the association agreements with the partner countries, make the Charter for Peace and Stability a priority once again, make great efforts to assist development and do something about the burden of debt of the poorest countries. At long last we must open up our markets to their produce, and standardise our regulations for the reception and asylum of persons immigrating into Europe. To sum up, we must restore Europe’s confidence in its determination to achieve a real partnership with the South. Everyone is aware of this. We must make a quantitative, but also a qualitative effort. The Commission and the Council claim to want this. We are willing to believe them, but the countries of the South need more than just promises and speeches, and it is up to us to give them those things. No doubt, Marseilles is our last chance for that. This is one of the major issues of the French Presidency.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, evaluating an extensive and not always specifically formulated ten year programme for EU environmental policy is a difficult enough task in itself. What the rapporteur has made of it makes the matter even more difficult. I think that what the Commission laid before us was a very good starting point. I really feel sorry for the Commission officials who presented a very good report because their good work was changed so much. I am unable to congratulate the rapporteur. In the discussion on the evaluation of the Fifth Environment Action Programme with a view to the sixth, three essential concerns were repeatedly formulated in the fundamentals, and thankfully I find them here again: streamlined EU legislation, a voluntary approach to implementation – so far as possible – and greater involvement of the consumer, whose behaviour we want to influence, after all. Because it is no longer the ‘What’ that is at the forefront of environmental policy today. We are agreed on that – industry is, too – but how we get there, that is where the controversy lies! As I see it, the EU way is often twin-track, contradictory, difficult to implement, bureaucratic and costly out of all proportion to the ecological purpose. Such legal errors are then multiplied fifteen fold in the implementation. If, as I very much hope, we are to have enlargement very soon, there will be twice as many, because in the end with all these mistakes the dogs always bite the last one in the chain. That is not industry, it is the consumer. The implementation of existing EU environmental legislation addressed in the Environment Action Programme and rightly called for repeatedly by Commissioner Wallström makes good sense and is also consistent with our repeated call for streamlined legislation. I find there is a lot missing from this environment programme. I am sure we could have included it. Only what the rapporteur has made of it does not improve matters. I feel sorry for the Commission officials!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, double congratulations, to the Commission on its initiative and to the rapporteur for breathing new life into this report. From the moment I joined the various bodies and committees of the European Parliament working on social policy issues, I have taken pains to demonstrate that the first and most important move the European Union has to make in order to strengthen the validity of the International Labour Organisation is to make it an equal member of the WTO and develop permanent channels for collaboration between the European Union and the ILO. This is the only way we shall combat the huge social deficit in globalisation. Global society has lost no time breaking down barriers to trade and even less time setting new standards for global trade and, at the same time, not just averting new regulatory standards on social matters but equating development in third countries with unbridled privatisation and market liberalisation. What we have is the total supremacy of the World Bank programmes. However, even these organisations talk in their own reports of how these programmes have failed on the social front. The philosophy of abolishing workers' rights and of forced labour which prevails in third countries must be reversed. Consequently, if we really want to make the ILO a true protagonist on the new world stage, we need an integrated programme. We need ratification of international conventions and, more importantly, acceptance of control mechanisms for social issues.

Political group: PSE
I have something I would like to say to the Council. I have just returned from Cuba, where I was able to observe the situation on the ground with an open mind, and a visit to the island might not be a bad idea for some in view of the way in which violations of human rights are discussed in this House. As a result of our policy towards that country, we are overlooking a real treasure. Whatever might be said about Cuba, the country has a great deal to offer; we can learn a lot from it, certainly in the field of actions for the benefit of specific target groups in selected neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is regrettable that Europe's attitude means that many European NGOs are now having a very difficult time over there. They would like Europe to restore and improve relations with Cuba and look at that country from a different perspective without being influenced by third parties. There are many rumours about Cuba and, compared to other countries, we look at that country with different eyes. Without going into specifics, I could list other countries where the death penalty is still in place. In short, there are lots of exciting things happening in Cuba, and it would be useful to visit that country and take a dispassionate look at it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the situation is indeed serious in both Serbia and Kosovo but, today, I would like to concentrate on the situation in Serbia and would like to concur with what Mrs Pack, the chairperson of our delegation for the region, has said on the matter. It is with growing frustration that we have to note that the situation in Serbia is deteriorating by the day. Milosevic is creating dictatorial conditions, a country governed by security troops, State media and State terror. He shies away from a democratic confrontation with the opposition. Every day, we are confronted with examples of repression. The independent media are thwarted. A very negative trend is setting in. Politicians are under threat. There is a murderous atmosphere. The assaults are relentless. The student movement, OTPOR, on which the opposition is pinning all hope, is being attacked without mercy. CCL recently branded them terrorists. Measures are also being prepared against the universities so as to force students to keep calm. All in all, a situation is being created in which democracy is becoming a farce and the regime is trying to keep a grip on the situation by means of totalitarian manipulation. We are sitting on the sidelines and can do all too little to bolster the democratic powers. We have insufficient direct influence on the situation in Serbia itself. It is nonetheless important that we express our indignation once again today. We need to remain involved, and it is also useful that we, as a Parliament, are here today expressing our broad consensus on the situation and on how the situation in Serbia is to be addressed. The opposition in Serbia needs us. A great deal of aid has been set aside for Serbia within the framework of the Stability Pact. The money concerned cannot be spent until Belgrade makes a U-turn, but that will only happen if the opposition can express itself. As Mrs Schroedter has already mentioned, we are asking the Commission to make a huge effort and employ a great deal of creativity in order to help the towns in Serbia which support the opposition. But in addition to this, it must also be possible to give the independent media some backing. Is the Commission prepared to cooperate in setting up radio and TV facilities which can reach the Serbian population from outside that country? In my opinion, this proposal is worth a very serious effort.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to announce our group’s support for the reports by Mr Katiforis and Mrs Kauppi, whose proposals are a significant step forward in the creation of a single market in financial services, in accordance with the Commission’s proposals contained in the action plan on financial services. The removal of obstacles in the Member States with regard to financial markets is essential in the Europe of the euro and will enable us to take advantage of all the opportunities offered by the existence of the single European currency. Allow me once again to repeat the comparison I have made before. What we are now undertaking in the financial and monetary field is what we undertook ten years ago with the establishment of the European single market for goods and services, ensuring the general freedom of movement for capital, workers and goods. We have set a timetable: 2005, and our fellow Members’ proposals, I believe, move in the right direction. They support the Commission’s proposals, they highlight the need to meet the timetable and, at the same time, they offer and indicate specific aspects. With regard to the report by Mrs Kauppi, I believe that paragraph 16, on the mechanisms which have been applied and proposed – and which the Commission has already implemented – to resolve cross-border extrajudicial disputes relating to financial services, is essential to overcoming possible problems at Member State level. This system and this concern also appear in Mr Katiforis’s report. I congratulate both of them on their work and I repeat that we support them.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the end I voted in favour of Mr Fatuzzo’s report, despite the fact that some of the amendments that I had tabled with Mr Brok, on behalf of my group, had been rejected. It is a pity, because they clarified the aspects of pension policy for which the Member States are responsible and the – very few – aspects for which the European Union is competent. The oral amendment tabled by Mr Fatuzzo to our Amendment No 16 talks about the Commission's support for guaranteeing the right to a pension. The word ‘support’ may cause confusion. It must be clear that there can be no question of the Commission providing funding to enable the objectives laid down in this paragraph to be met, objectives with which all of us agree. The Commission cannot provide financial assistance: all it can do is support a process, as it does with open coordination. Moreover, we welcome the Commission’s initiative, in the same paragraph, seeking to guarantee safe and sustainable pensions. This would have been more than enough. I had not realised that our colleagues – who are after all quite vigilant when it comes to social security – thought that they had caused confusion here between Community competences and the sacrosanct principle of subsidiarity. Yesterday the entire in this House violently opposed the Barcelona proposal that it would be worthwhile and necessary for many more people over the age of 50 to work. In this case, we are in favour of subsidiarity, all the more so when we are talking about something for which the Member States have full – and not shared – responsibility, which is the case for the three pillars of our pension systems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and I hope that one reading will suffice. I would like to concentrate on just one thing, namely sinks. I disagree on this point. I have just returned from a trip to South America as part of an official delegation. Surprisingly enough, they have been looking very closely at this Linking Directive, at any rate in some of the ministries, and I was repeatedly told how important it is for them that sinks, in other words forestry, should be included. I can see why. If we included forestry, it would be an extraordinarily great help not least in fighting poverty in those countries, or in creating alternatives to drugs in places where they are cultivated. I would also like to mention that just under a year ago France concluded an agreement with Colombia which did include forestry; there is therefore a conflict between Parliament and the Council of Ministers that we will not survive in the long term.

Political group: PSE
It is too late or too early to pass judgment on the Eurostat affair, to which, let it be added, there is much more than has been mentioned in the motion. It is comical to suggest that a Parliament that is about to stand down should censure a Commission that is going to do likewise. As the President deemed the motion admissible, however, and put it to the vote, I did vote, and did so in favour of censure. The fact is that no man of the can express confidence in a Commission capable of proposing the Bolkestein directive on public services, a directive that threatens to sound their death knell.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, BSE is still a danger. The danger has not been averted. And if there is less of a chance of catching BSE now than there was a short time ago, then it is thanks to our work here in Parliament and, I freely admit Mr Byrne, it is also thanks to the work which you have done. The new Commission and you personally are consistent in your approach, but I must nonetheless criticise certain aspects of the proposals. One chink in the Commission’s armour at European level was that of milk replacer and the fat contaminated with protein residue. Unfortunately it was closed too late. What is being done now is a step in the right direction. But fat is still being added, albeit heat-treated fat. And, Mr Byrne, the question is, where does the mechanically recovered meat go, if not into the food chain? Is it used for bonemeal, is it used for fat and will brain residue left behind when the skull is sucked out end up in it? Is it sterilised enough at 133 degrees? As we know, these prions are clearly proving to be resistant to heat treatment. It would be better here if we said that the only fat in milk replacer must come from the milk itself. If you really must have fat, then put the butter which has been removed back in or feed the milk straight to the animals. The second problem is the brain. We still have a situation in which the brain from animals under 12 months old can be used. We can also use pigs' brains. The proof of the sausage cannot be in the eating. So what we need to do is to remove both cows' and pigs' brains from the whole sausage, from the whole food chain. The third aspect is testing. Mr Böge said earlier that we want to test after 18 months. I must correct him here: Parliament's resolution states that all animals which enter the food chain must be tested, starting at 18 months. This too must be guaranteed and we must not let up in our pursuit of this objective. Mr Byrne, we must not allow animals which are not being tested now to be slaughtered, because we urgently need these results for diagnostic reasons – as Mr Böge has already said – in order to evaluate the overall threat of BSE in Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, it is always useful to hear your recommendations on the practical aspects of the euro. I do get the idea, however, that you are not overly concerned. I, personally, am concerned and I think that there are still some fundamental sticking points: people do not really know what is going to happen in practice, businesses do not really know and Europe’s citizens are not familiar with the new currency. Do you not think that specific measures need to be adopted? The second question I would like to ask you is this: what is really happening with transfers between euro-zone countries? When will stop paying transfer costs within the euro zone, between euro-zone countries?

Political group: PSE