GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen and our rapporteurs, I would just like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteurs, above all Mrs van den Burg, but also Mrs Kauppi, for their cooperation on this report and also for the help they gave me with the report on cross-border provision of occupational pensions. Today's report on taxation expands and continues the report for which the codecision procedure was negotiated as long ago as July this year. All of us take the view that occupational pensions – among other areas – will require greater fiscal coordination. We propose the EET system of deferred taxation, on the grounds that it is already a reality in the great majority of Member States. If we do not achieve this fiscal coordination, we will have distortions of competition within the financial internal market through differing tax systems, which we do not want to have within a single market of which we want to make the best possible use, including in connection with the introduction of euro notes and coins. Amendment No 1, proposed by Mrs Kauppi, expressly demands that the Council should make speedy progress towards a proposal for a directive on the activities of institutions providing occupational pensions, which would ensure mutual recognition of occupational pension systems and make a significant contribution to efforts towards effective tax coordination. It is regrettable that this amendment should be needed at all, as the ECOFIN council, like the European Council meetings at Lisbon, Feira, Stockholm and wherever else, determines priorities and, despite that, has managed nothing more that the sending-out of a questionnaire. I wish therefore to ask the Council why it stresses the urgency of this, whilst its actions do not reflect that urgency. What are the Council's problems with last October's proposal from the Commission? What does the Council have to say in response to the van den Burg report and to Parliament's resolution of July? With which individual demands is the Council having difficulty? We want answers. We want them because we want to carry on negotiating in order to be able at last to achieve the aims of the action plan on financial services and implement Parliament's requirements – for the benefit of citizens and of enterprises and in the spirit of the common objectives that are so often invoked.

Political group: PPE-DE
Four years after the adoption of the EU code of conduct on arms exports, it was time for the European Parliament to demonstrate to the Member States their will to make the common criteria for arms exports binding. I am delighted that amendments to this effect have been adopted. Following the example of the Belgian Government, all the Member States should introduce the provisions of the European Union’s code of conduct on arms exports into their national legislation. (The sitting was suspended at 12.59 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to give a brief explanation of vote with regard to the Bourlanges report and in particular our vote on Doc. A5-30/99. In that document Mr Bourlanges sets out in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 the reasoning behind the conclusion that Parliament does not approve the Council’s proposals. In particular, paragraph 8 was an important political signal to the Council. My own group, which is of divided opinion on the matter, has a minority who intended to vote against paragraph 8, and did so. However, I also led the majority of the group inadvertently into voting against paragraph 8 due to an incorrect voting indication. I wish to place on record for Mr Bourlanges and for the House that the majority of my group was disposed to vote for the strategy in paragraph 8. I should like that to be noted and duly recorded.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, yesterday, I gave an explanation of vote in writing on trafficking in human beings, and there is no record of it in the Minutes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think the Environment Committee has produced a very fine opinion on Mr Bradbourn's report. The ladies and gentlemen in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are, alas, not as ecologically aware as their colleagues in the Environment Committee, but, after all, one has a bit less of a grasp of things one does not spend that much of one's time dealing with. We are, however, of one mind when it comes to being ready to promote the development of transport links with the countries bordering on the EU and between the EU's Member States, which I consider to be most important in terms of the enlargement of the European Union. Yet the Environment Committee has scored one major success in that the Transport Committee now accepts that the results of the strategic environmental impact assessments should be binding on the actual processes of implementation. Only on the connection between health issues and transport issues are they evidently unwilling to think more deeply. It is the case in all the Member States that transport accidents, above all road traffic accidents, are a major cause of death and serious injury. Air transport contributes significantly to air pollution. A considerable number of people in Europe are exposed to levels of traffic noise which are not only a serious nuisance and a cause of disturbed sleep, but also lead to communication problems and, in children, even to genuinely serious mental disturbance. We are keen to discuss all this in depth, but there was a lack of willingness to take the Environment Committee's opinion that seriously on these points. Good things take time, though, and there will no doubt be another opportunity for the Environment Committee to have its say on transport issues. Certainly, nothing in human affairs can be seen only in black and white, and we all know that a very great part of our freedom and our prosperity is tied up with transport – be it by air, on the roads or on rail – but we should be responsible in all that we do. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as parliamentarians we have a duty to uphold the democratic will of the citizens we represent in keeping with the laws and the constitutions of our sovereign Member States. We must also ensure that in the European Union human dignity is protected and the weakest and most vulnerable are defended. It is unacceptable for human life, whatever its age, to be treated as a commercial product, without regard to that life or the price paid by women in supplying the embryos. It is deeply disturbing that the European Commission, supported by Members of this Parliament and certain Member State governments, is seeking to impose public funding of controversial and unethical research without proper public debate and without the opportunity for national parliaments to respond. There has certainly been no debate in Dáil Éireann. This proposal is against not only laws and constitutions, but also the conscience of millions of citizens. It also pressures applicant and Third World countries to become part of an EU market-place for human embryo research. This controversial research has no scientifically positive results and, as our rapporteur has pointed out, is high-risk. Let us not play on the hopes and fears of sufferers. Let us use public funding for adult stem cell research, which has positive scientific results and may be as effective as research using embryonic stem cells. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market rejected the Commission's proposal and I urge support for the amendments tabled by its chairman, Mr Gargani, which I have co-signed with other Members. Last week a key committee in the Irish Parliament also voted to reject this unethical research. There is a public outcry in Ireland. Tánaiste Mary Harney and the Irish Government have no mandate to agree this funding on behalf of Irish citizens. Just as there was no public mandate for an EU Constitution, there was clearly no mandate for this unconstitutional and unethical use of taxpayers' money.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in accordance with the gentlemen’s agreement made at the Conference of Presidents, I would like to ask for an extra quarter of an hour, that is to say, I would be grateful if we could start at 12.45 p.m. (The sitting was suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 12.45 p.m.)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to offer the rapporteur my sincere thanks. It is customary practice to do this anyway, but I think that it is particularly fitting in this case. The reason is that the rapporteur has really tried to concern himself in particular with the position of migrants in the labour market. I believe that he has succeeded in this, but unfortunately not entirely, because others have presented all kinds of distracting amendments. I should like to mention Amendment No 13 in particular, which more or less states that anyone who has paid even a small amount of tax anywhere should have an automatic right to a residence permit. I think that it is impossible to speak about any part of this topic without taking as one’s point of departure that Europe, with 450 million inhabitants, cannot be a reception centre for ten times as many people living outside Europe. That is not possible, and if we refuse to accept this fact, things become very difficult. The rapporteur has of course accepted it, and hence speaks about ‘managing migration’. That automatically implies doing something about it, keeping the situation in hand. I think that that is very good, in itself. If people keep to it, this is a splendid report. I have a fundamental difference of opinion, therefore, with those behind me who have said that it is nothing but nonsense and flights of fancy. That is not true. The dangerous flights of fancy are to be found on the other side of this House, where people are seeking to grant rights that cannot be fulfilled. If we cannot provide employment, there is no sense in granting rights. This would make us like the rich people of old who had a beautiful view from their windows and cared nothing that the poor people had to live in slums, because that is where they went, after all. Anyone who wants that should say so. They must also come out and say that we should indeed take in everyone and only then look at the consequences. That is the problem that we have here in the background. The rapporteur has shown that he is aware of that. He has also shown that he is trying to prevent that. Unfortunately, however, there are still some people in his own party – and in some other parties – who copy those aristocrats of old who believed that everyone should simply be given rights but who were not themselves prepared to accept the logical consequences of this and, instead, left others to deal with them. That exacerbates the misery, as we can see in the United States, and we want to avoid that. There is absolutely no need for any talk of this. Finally, on the subject of European citizenship, the rules on this are laid down in the Treaty, and it is indeed strange to include this subject here in a couple of words. That would need a Treaty amendment. We have, however, declared ourselves in agreement with the Convention, which does not provide for this. It would be very strange, then, if we were to simply go and lay down rules on the subject here in this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
One of the reasons why the Dutch Labour Party delegation voted against this report is the absence of a tax compromise. The Dutch Labour Party delegation hopes that the Council will soon be prepared to negotiate and to examine the willingness in the EP to incorporate a facility for additional national taxes and to regulate with effect from 2004. The Dutch Labour Party delegation hopes that a Statute for Members for which it can vote does nonetheless come about.

Political group: PSE
We have of course voted against the report on this so-called ACP (African-Caribbean-Pacific) – EU ‘Joint’ Parliamentary Assembly. This is just a pseudo-parliamentary front for unequal relations and, in fact, for the plundering of these regions of the developing world by the European imperialist powers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, why has the situation of women in Afghanistan been raised in this debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance? The answer is that, although discrimination against women has become a common problem in today’s world, the discrimination being experienced by women in Afghanistan is unique and without precedent. This is the explanation given by one of the courageous women who is standing up and telling the world about this abominable situation. There is therefore no doubt about the urgency of this issue and this has been the case since 1996. Terror and fanaticism have swept through Afghanistan since the arrival of the Taliban. Women are their bête noire and the hatred which they have unleashed against them is expressed in inhuman violence. All females, including young girls, are subject to a strict regime of segregation. They have no freedom of speech, no access to healthcare and no right to work. They are forced to cover themselves from head to toe which is like living in a walking prison. They can be beaten in the street simply for not covering their faces and hair correctly. In addition to physical cruelty, there is every evidence that almost all the women living in Afghanistan are subject to psychological pressures which are leading them to depression and suicide. This situation can only get worse because girls are not allowed to be educated beyond the age of nine. The direct consequences on all children are terrible for one child in five is dying before the age of five. These conditions are even less acceptable given that, in the past, Afghan women participated in public life as students, professionals, officials or even parliamentarians. This treatment, which is impossible for a human being to even conceive, is not a religious issue or a question of cultural tradition, as some would have us believe. It is a barbaric system which forces women into a sub-human status. We must react against this apartheid. We must stop these fanatics who are greedy for power and secretly supported not only by the regime in Pakistan and its Koranic schools but also, unfortunately, by American services. Several women’s organisations have been calling for some time for all the countries of the world to increase pressure on the Taliban. The UN and the European Union have rightly made their aid conditional on respect for human rights. As indicated in the motion for a resolution which, like Mrs Morgantini, I ask you to support en masse, I call on the Council not to recognise any regime in Afghanistan until sexual discrimination is eliminated. The Council must be more active and at least as active as it was with regard to Bin Laden. NGOs are also present in part of the country. We must help them and ensure that a proper action plan is implemented to support their work. We must also help the Afghan women who are in Europe organising themselves. They must receive our support and help. (Applause) Prison conditions of political prisoners in Djibouti:

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, are we not a little sadistic in always discussing fish on Fridays, the very day when, in Italy, fish end up in our frying pans? In Camogli, near Genoa, the city where I was born, there is a gigantic frying pan where, each year, fish are fried and then distributed free of charge to all the inhabitants. I am telling you this to explain why I am interested in fishing and why I voted for this measure. It is right for citizens to be consulted and, although Commissioner Diamantopoulou has correctly explained that the Commission is not obliged to consult the citizens, I would like to propose and request that elderly representatives of fishermen be allowed to participate in consultations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since I was the draftsman of the opinion of the committee on women’s rights and equal opportunities on this report, I should like first of all to offer my sincere thanks to Mr van den Berg for his excellent work and of course for having adopted portions of our committee’s recommendations. So what is the situation? We have a good report, we have a good rapporteur, we have a highly-motivated Commissioner here among us, and many committed people in the field, overseas aid workers, and educationalists. Yet there are a number of infuriating aspects, because everything takes so long. The clock is ticking and yet I see so many organisations in the field that have to beg in order to be able to build schools and pay teachers. We have a long road ahead of us. The right to education and access to education are often empty words in developing countries. That is right: there are still 113 million children who do not attend school and most of them are girls, as Mr van den Berg has already said. They have to help with the housework, they have to contribute to the daily provision of food for the whole family, they have to look after the infants, they have to sell any leftovers at market and they have to fetch drinking water. That means that they have no time to devote to themselves. I can therefore wholeheartedly endorse the conclusions of this report, namely that education is the key to combating poverty. Only through education can a country develop, only through an adequately educated population can a country progress. Give a girl or a woman education and you are educating the whole family. We also all know that equal opportunities for women are not only achieved by changing legislation and social conditions. No! It happens through education. Participation of women in all sectors of society and the achievement of general social, cultural and economic progress begin with reasonable qualitative and quantitative education. We have already seen this in Europe. Only when women were given reasonable schooling and access to education did emancipation take off in all sectors of society, including politics. But it is a long road. As the rapporteur rightly says in the notes to his report, educated women have more opportunities for improving the economic situation of themselves and their family, and even down to their choice of husband. The individual personal development of women also offers more protection against exploitation in all its forms, including prostitution, forced or otherwise, and human trafficking, particularly trafficking in women and children. I have, despite this, three further observations. The time frame indicated in this report is in my view somewhat unclear. The financial consequences are not properly set out. And I therefore hope that the Commission, jointly with the Member States, will set to work in a coordinated way to achieve the objectives contained in the statement of the Commission. Secondly the problem of AIDS, and finally, in conclusion, education, which as Commissioner Nielson said at the outset, must be adapted to the local culture.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Minister Péry and Commissioner Diamantopoulou for today's debate. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, whose report not only contains observations on the situation of equal opportunities in the European Union, but also recommends a course of action. I would particularly like to thank the Minister for the work she is doing in her own country and as President-in-Office of the Council, and I would like to make a connection between the work of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council and the work of the Commission, focusing on one point: employment. The report before us is, I feel, a major synergistic work. The guidelines for 2001 on equal opportunities in the world of employment are starting to become better defined, more specific and more effective. This is the way forward. The Committee on Women's Rights would like to congratulate the Commission and also propose a few even more specific pointers. I truly believe that this report and the Fifth Action Programme which lays down a strategy are the way forward. We might do better to stop complaining, or rather to complain but, at the same time, to show due appreciation for the positive steps which are being taken to ensure that we make increasingly effective progress. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mooring services are a general interest service as recognised by the judgment of the Court of Luxembourg of 18 June 1998. Within this context, the port authority may require mooring services to handle any safety problems with no obligation for remuneration. Mooring services provide all ships with the same quality of service, due to an extremely extensive knowledge of the port in which the service is provided. The permanent nature of the service, the professional qualifications of the workers, their knowledge of the specific local features and the essential role played by mooring services in port and maritime safety make this activity an essential determining factor in environmental protection. The deterioration of the merchant fleet as a whole and the increasing over-use of frequently faulty boats and equipment show the extent of the essential role to be played by mooring service providers in years to come, due to their technical skills and wide knowledge of their place of work. Mooring services, like piloting, must therefore be excluded from the European directive, and that is why the group of the has voted in favour of Amendments No 66 and 67 of this report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madame President, can I congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Gallagher on the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, and Mrs Fraga on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and acquacultural products. Both reports are generally worthy of support, and with Mr Gallagher’s report I have no fundamental problems. On Mrs Fraga’s report, although I welcome the general thrust of the report, there are a couple of problems. We welcome the common organisation of the markets and strengthening of the producer organisations, but I have problems firstly where there is a danger that costs are being pushed up unnecessarily and while we recognise that the level of intervention age needs increasing, maybe not in the way it is actually put here. With regard to tariff suspensions, we believe the criteria are rather over-strict, and we would like a more liberal system. We want to ensure that we can benefit the processing industry without affecting producers. With respect to herring, we agree that the tariff suspension should be turned into an annual quota, and we accept the recommendations for cod, Alaska pollack and shrimp. In terms of the amendments, we will certainly be opposing Amendment No 47 and I have to express some reservations on Amendments Nos 35 and 41, which we may be unable to support.

Political group: PSE
The European Union is made up of sovereign states, each with a seat in the United Nations and, so far, each boasting its own currency. The banks form part of national payment circuits and impose a heavy fine on cross-border payments and money transfers. From January 2002, twelve EU Member States will act as if they are one country financially speaking. The banks are in favour of this as long as this enlarges their own scope, but not if they have to forgo the additional payments from their customers. It seems appealing to demand that the costs for national and cross-border payments in euros should become the same. That has been Commissioner Bolkestein’s wish for a long time and is now also being proposed in the report by Mrs Peijs. I can endorse this, as long as it means that banks forgo their levies on cross-border payments. However, recital 5bis does not prevent new levies from being imposed on national payments by way of compensation for the fact that revenue from foreign payments has fallen by the wayside. Instead of imposing a heavy fine on a small minority of payments, including mainly business payments, all payments will then attract a minor fine. That means that the large majority of customers will incur higher costs. I shall vote against this, as this is highly detrimental to the ordinary account holder. – Chichester report (A5-0363/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL