GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as I explained last night, I am not thrilled with the compromise reached in Feira on the taxation of savings income. I voted in favour of all the amendments in Mr Pérez Royo’s report because I authored the greater majority of them. I am also very grateful to the rapporteur for no longer including these overly radical amendments, as I explained to the House last night. I also voted in favour of the report in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market so that it could be placed on the agenda. Although I decided nonetheless to vote against the report on this occasion, it was in order to register that I am, in principle, against the fact that, at Feira, we abandoned the co-existence model which would have enabled Member States to choose whether to withhold tax or to exchange information on savings income received. I also believe that we can no longer have a situation where Member States adopt and publish a directive on this issue before ascertaining whether the same measures will be applied in dependent or associated territories, and before having concluded negotiations with third countries on the application of equivalent measures, on the understanding that withholding tax is not the same as the exchange of information.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I hope with all my heart that this report, into which Mr Liese has poured so much energy, will have a natural birth without the need for forceps like the report on blood, which had long been the subject of controversy but for which we succeeded in finding a solution after many years thanks to active, intelligent, enthusiastic cooperation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. I shall mention just a few points this evening – four, in particular. Firstly, I feel that it is right – as Mr Liese said – that the donation of cells and tissues should be on a voluntary basis and unpaid, a principle already endorsed when the report on blood was adopted. However, where industry has helped to improve the quality and conservation of cells and tissues, for example by using genetic engineering techniques to make tissues histocompatible, it is right to allow for appropriate payment. Secondly, I hope that Amendment No 83, proposed by myself and Mr Liese, will be adopted. It calls upon the Commission to draw up new legislation on the use of retrodifferentiation to create stem cells from adult cells as soon as possible. The retrodifferentiation of adult cells, achieved by transferring their nucleus, rather than to an egg cell without a nucleus, to a medium rich in nutritive elements and other growth factors, could make it possible to overcome the current ethical problems connected with the therapeutic use of stem cells from human embryos. Thirdly, as regards the use of stem cells for research purposes, I hope that the rules laid down in the Sixth Framework Programme will always remain in force and that we do not let anything in by the back door today that should not be there. Fourthly and lastly, I support the Commission’s proposal that the directive should cover the use of cells and tissues for research purposes where this is carried out on human beings but not where experimental research is carried out in vitro or on animal models. I would therefore call upon the rapporteur, Mr Liese, should Amendments Nos 7 and 19 be adopted, to introduce more flexibility at second reading to avoid unwieldy administrative procedures slowing down research in Europe in key fields such as pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics, for example, whose objective is to develop new drugs which are much more effective and have no toxic action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to speak about the issues underlying the proposal for a regulation, which have been so thoroughly studied and discussed in committee and in this Chamber, a process that culminated in the vote on Parliament’s opinion last November. It is nevertheless worthwhile saying, in line with the views of the rapporteur Mr Pirker and of the Commission itself, how incomprehensible we find it that in the new text, the Council proposes to reserve to itself responsibility for implementing the Eurodac regulation, which departs from the system previously envisaged, in which these powers would fall to the Commission. We are unhappy with this, firstly because Parliament, as has already been pointed out, is seeing its rights diminished, specifically its right to remain informed. In fact, the Commission is, in general terms, obliged, under the terms of Article 7 of the decision on comitology, to keep Parliament informed of committee proceedings and whenever the Commission transmits relevant measures or proposals to the Council. With this new text, this prerogative is clearly undermined. Secondly, there is a lack of legal coherence and above all a lack of legal justification in these transfers of competence. Article 1 of the decision on comitology has not been respected and therefore this course of action breaches Article 202 of the Treaty, since this article contains no provisions that would justify this procedure being adopted in this specific case. Our view is that the generally accepted status of the Commission is still valid: it is the guardian of the treaties, equidistant from each of the Member States; it is autonomous, independent and the defender of the common good. It is the Commission rather than the Member States that is responsible – transcending borders and national peculiarities – for drafting laws that provide adequate protection on issues involving fundamental freedoms. The Council has demonstrated its lack of confidence in the Commission. Without wishing to appear perverse, perhaps the Council is looking for a legal fight over this issue, which would clear the way for an almost certain application to the European Court of Justice to delay the universal implementation of the new Community legislation in progress on the right to asylum. Sometimes in politics, things are indeed what they seem! Unfortunately, Commissioner, and this is not your fault, this is a matter on which you cannot allay our fears.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we can only endorse the general guidelines of the five-year programme and of the programme for 2000, set out with so much enthusiasm by President Prodi this morning. In the two documents, strong emphasis is placed on the need to define new forms of European governance and, to this end, to introduce a new agenda for the Commission, establishing more stringent priorities in the pursuit of the goal of full employment, through more efficient coordination of the economic and social policies of the States, and, primarily – allow me to stress this – of the nations that have joined the monetary union and which must be enabled to become the first example of closer cooperation. To this end, I shall confine myself to stressing, out of all the choices available, the importance of three priority decisions which should, in the drawing-up of action programmes for the government of the Union, be the basis for both the Commission’s agenda and the actions of the European Union in the coming months. Firstly, the promotion of and participation in the drafting of joint plans for the creation of an integrated services network in the transport and energy sectors, with the backing of the European Investment Bank. Secondly, the approval of investments – where the parameters are binding when drawing up action programmes on employment – to be made in individual countries via Community projects in the priority sectors of research, innovation and training. I feel that these parameters – particularly those of a qualitative nature, resulting from investments in continuous training, refresher courses, adaptability and retraining of older workers – are considerably more significant and binding owing to their lasting effects over the medium term than the simple drawing up of annual quantitative objectives, that are always debatable, regarding new employment or employment cuts. If, among other things, as the programme of the Portuguese Presidency stresses as well, the Commission could promote a new phase of social dialogue, focusing on an agreed strategy of socialisation and diffusion of knowledge, in other words, a strategy for employability and the definition of its rules, this would allow us to take a step towards having employees participate in the informed and consensual management of the restructuring and reemployment processes. Thirdly, I do not think that the decrease in the number of the working population, owing to the ageing of the population, is unavoidable and inevitable for the European Union. This is not just because of the existence of margins which would permit an increase in the number of working women and immigration, but because we need to be determined in reversing the widespread trend of early retirements from the job market, and direct the coordinated reform of social welfare systems, certainly not towards large reductions in future pension payments but towards the active use of people’s increased life expectancy and towards a longer working life.

Political group: PSE
I have voted for amendment 2 from the Group of the because I consider that citizens of third countries resident within the EU ought to have the same rights as EU citizens when it comes to freedom of movement. However, I am not a supporter of a common EU policy on the issuing of passports. Instead, I consider that each EU country should be able freely to exercise control over its own policy in this area.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let me begin where the previous speaker left off. Sweden and Finland have considerably more lakes than all other EU Member States combined. In our countries, it is common for the lakes to be sources of drinking water or very sensitive natural areas, for example breeding grounds for birds. In sensitive lakes, we currently meet the environmental demands through limits on boat traffic, for example boating bans in certain areas during the birds’ breeding periods. In Sweden and Finland, it is also common to sail up lakes in boats that are used for coastal journeys. It is good that environmental requirements are set high even for leisure boat engines, as occurs in this directive. We Swedes, and my colleagues from Finland, are concerned, however, that this proposal for a directive opens the possibility of higher environmental requirements for leisure boats used on lakes than for those used for coastal journeys. In our countries, this would be an impracticable EU law, created by those who do not want to listen and take on board the message about the actual conditions in the Nordic Member States with their thousands of lakes. With a separate environmental standard for boats used on lakes, we should be neglecting the actual reason for the proposal for a directive, the single market. In addition, we do not currently have the ability to obtain a higher environmental standard for leisure boats on lakes. The consequence will be that people will refrain from buying modern, environmentally better, boat engines. This proposal might look good on paper, but in reality the result would be a bad one, and there would be a bad result for the environment. I would willingly raise the requirements for environmental standards for leisure boat engines in the future, but realistic specifications would then have to be set. Moreover, the transition periods would have to be adjusted to the time required for the development of new engine technology. No such amendments have been put forward, which is why the only reasonable thing is for the Commission to come back with new environmental requirements in a subsequent review of this directive. Boats often lie at anchor, but environmental policy must also be anchored. It has to be anchored in reality. If this is not the case, environmental policy will come adrift in troubled waters and among hidden rocks, and then it will be the environment that is damaged.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have two very important reports to deal with today and an important question relating to the dreadful intolerable situation in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I should like to concentrate on the Lalumière report, because it documents the progress that has undoubtedly been achieved in the domain of European defence and security policy and sets that progress in a balanced and democratic framework. It is balanced, because the report makes it quite clear that we need three things: the first is an analysis of the various risk factors in and around Europe, the second is prevention, and the third is civilian crisis management. Only if all of that is to no avail do we need military crisis management. It will not always be possible to take these steps one after the other in chronological order, but we need the entire package, and the fact is that only all of these factors together will make a coherent, balanced defence and security policy in Europe. The report, however, also brings a democratic framework into play, and I should like to lay particular emphasis on that here. Minister, I should like to say a special word of thanks to you for having been with us in committee and for being here today. However, your personal commitment must not be seen as a substitute for democratic legitimisation of the European security and defence policy. Defence policy, the question of defence spending, is a national matter and must be determined and overseen by the national parliaments. There is, however, a European level of security policy, and the European Parliament acts as a budgetary authority for security expenditure at that level. We need cooperation between the national and European levels, and we also need democratic supervision. I realise, Minister, that you are sceptical and that you have just said 'No' again, as you did in Paris on a previous occasion, but this Parliament still believes in these principles, irrespective of party allegiance, and we shall go on campaigning for their acceptance. Allow me one final plea: enhance European defence policy by giving it a parliamentary democratic dimension.

Political group: PSE
It now seems to be an established fact that the Government of the United States is determined to go to war against Iraq, whatever the Security Council decides. With or without the authorisation of the Security Council, this war is unjustifiable. Of course we must hope that reason will prevail within the Security Council and that, if there is a war, it will be formally contrary to international legality. Those thirty or so of us who have just been to Iraq were able to see for ourselves the state of material and moral dilapidation of the country, trapped as it is between a ludicrous and bloody dictatorship and the sanctions imposed by the international community. The Iraqi army is merely a shadow of its former self, and is formidable only in the hallucinations of the American President. What concerns the oil-obsessed Government of the United States is of course control of the black gold, and not the weapons of mass destruction which, as the experts know full well, Iraq does not possess. This war will be another crushing blow for people who are already suffering greatly, particularly the Kurdish population. Among those people it will give rise to lasting and justified hatred of the West, and will cause innumerable tragedies. This crisis shows how far Europe still has to go before it becomes anything other than an integrated economic area. (Written statement abbreviated in accordance with Rule 120(7) of the Rules of Procedure) IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I too am proud of the work Mr Esteve and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy have produced with total consensus. With this report, Europe has unambiguously defined the two priorities of its foreign policy: a policy concentrating on eastward enlargement and a policy focusing on the Mediterranean area as fundamental in the creation of a future of peace and prosperity. The Euro-Mediterranean Conference is now the only genuine, existing forum for dialogue between the Arab delegations, the Israeli delegation and the European delegation. Providing that forum for work and dialogue with tools such as the Euro-Mediterranean Development Bank and the Foundation and pursuing the MEDA programmes will allow us to create and foster an area of south-south and north-south free trade, on the one hand, and an area of dialogue, knowledge, training and communication on the other. Only thus will the common values of different civilisations be clearly revealed; only thus will understanding of and respect for the cultures, religions and histories of different peoples grow. Only thus, I feel, will we be able to create a far-reaching area of democracy, economic growth and emergence from poverty, which are essential conditions if we are to promote and uphold the need for an area within which there is a shared policy of respect for the individual and safeguarding of human rights, which is the prerequisite for the success of any peace policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament consider that the postal market within the EU should be opened up to competition. By gradually deregulating the European market postal services can be made more efficient and the level of service to the customer raised. An end date would send a clear message to the players in the postal market and provide better opportunity for the national monopolies to prepare for deregulation. For this reason we have voted for an end date for liberalisation. We also consider it unjustifiable that countries in the EU compete in Sweden’s postal market, for example, when they are not prepared to allow competition in their own markets. We have therefore abstained in the vote on the Ferber report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Group of the , I should like to say a few words on this subject. Immediately before the summer recess, we experienced the difficult situation involving the Take-over Directive, the social aspect of which, in particular, appeared unacceptable to a majority of this House. We can be very clear about this. In this case, the Directive is certainly acceptable, although I share the view of Mr Rothley and others that it is still deficient. However, that is due to a number of other factors. Ideally, we should have liked to have seen a kind of package deal emerge, combining the Take-over Directive and the European Company Directive, which would also have taken care of aspects related to participation, information and consultation. At the moment we are facing the difficult situation in which things happen in a certain sequence but in which we cannot entirely follow their interconnection. In the final analysis, we naturally agree that, in the framework of what we would then term ‘a European social model’, use should be made of the information and consultation rules that have been included in the reports of Mr Menrad and Mr Mayer which are, by the way, excellent, in my opinion. We should like this to be done in a non-Anglo-Saxon manner, as I indicated in connection with the Take-over Directive. If we now compare the European works council, as it exists at the moment, with the legislation under discussion with regard to information and consultation, then this comparison works out in favour of the current model. However, as will immediately be evident from the document, we still have the improvement of the European works council ahead of us. A great deal needs to be done there, so much so that I am not sure what the exact outcome will be. We therefore ultimately agree on this approach. With regard to information and consultation, we are naturally keen advocates of what is being described as ‘Rhineland working relations’. We accept this as what might be called a minimum guideline. For a number of countries, such as Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, the transposition into national legislation will therefore be of the utmost importance, because they generally apply superior regulations, and adaptation could prove problematical. Finally, I would draw your attention to the fact that I especially support Mr Menrad’s Amendment No 7 concerning the definition of ‘participation’. It is a challenge for the Commissioner to agree to this and also to handle the legal bases correctly.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I thank the Commissioner for answering my question here today. I am still not satisfied, however. In answer to a parliamentary question – PQ 1434/00 – put in May 2000, you said, Commissioner, that you would examine whether there was any significant new evidence on artificial fluoridation. This would, you said, include 'obtaining an appropriate update by consulting the Commission's Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment'. Apparently, you did not consult that committee, you went immediately to the WHO and you are still quoting what it considers to be desirable levels. The evidence is extremely shaky in this area. Yes, the scientific jury is out, but 13 out of 23 developing countries working under the WHO guidelines have serious problems with fluoride poisoning, or fluorosis, in the dental care of their people. In my own country fluorosis is becoming an increasing dental problem, particularly in teenagers. I would ask you to look particularly at the problem of neonates and infants, who are being fed milk formula from reconstituted, fluoridated tap water. Given that it constitutes a huge proportion of their diet, fluoridated tap water that is not inspected, in which the levels of fluoride are not regularly checked, is a serious health risk to our neonates and infants in Ireland and in parts of the UK where they still fluoridate tap water. As well as the ethical question of mass-medicating members of the public, who do not want fluoridation in their tap water, could you comment on the ethical and infant-related issues?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate Mr Bowis on the huge effort which he made in his report to take account of everyone's view and for agreeing that we should also refer to the more general concept of food. The White Paper on food safety is a proposal which aspires to restore consumer confidence in the entire food chain. Consumers are quite right to demand food which poses absolutely no threat to their health and the quality of which meets certain criteria and specifications. Consequently, legislation on food issues should cover the entire spectrum and extend horizontally. Allow me to highlight a number of points. The early warning system has proven to be less than efficient and the Member States bear a great deal of the responsibility for this. I think there should be specific deadlines by which the European Commission must be notified if there is any cause for concern. Stricter, more efficient controls are needed in the Member States. As far as the European Food Safety Agency is concerned, the fact that it is independent should be highlighted; then it will be able to assess any imminent risk and propose measures for managing the risk and helping to shape final political decisions. Similarly, the Agency should ensure that there is transparency by giving all interested parties access to information. I think that transparency and independence are the sine qua non for proper, safe food, which is what we are all aiming for.

Political group: PSE