GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I want to say a big thank-you to the rapporteur who has produced one of the best reports we have seen for a long time in the fuel and vehicles field. I agree with most of what the rapporteur has written. Above all, I want to emphasise the importance of bringing this proposal forward from 2011 to 2008. It is very good indeed that we should include fuels for non-road mobile machinery and treat the latter in the same way as all other vehicles. There is no reason at all to accord special treatment to machinery we do not normally see on the roads, but the Commission’s proposal would, if anything, postpone the day when anything advanced could be done in this area. The fact that the rapporteur proposes a thorough review of alternative fuels and also suggests that we can mix in more ethanol than the five per cent permitted under the present ceiling is also very much to be welcomed. I have a problem. This concerns the financial incentives. I understand the rapporteur’s train of thought, but I think the proposal is wrong in the way we have written it because, according to the Treaty, we can have financial incentives right now. If we insert this into every directive we now adopt, there is a risk of our creating a horizontal approach whereby we instead restrict the opportunities, as interpreted by the Council, of obtaining financial incentives. Through what we have written today, we are therefore doing ourselves a disservice. That is something I want the rapporteur to think about.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, even applying the principle that nothing is ever perfect in life, I have to say that I have difficulty in imagining a better Presidency than that which is coming to an end today. The Greek Presidency has succeeded in combining the major themes, already widely addressed – such as enlargement, supporting the Convention and establishing a very balanced, wise position in foreign policy – with everyday issues which are important for the citizens of Europe. Over these past six months, a relatively short time, we have brought a number of extremely important dossiers to a conclusion. We have made progress in financial dossiers, closed the energy dossier and implemented and extended major programmes such as Erasmus and eLearning: I therefore endorse your work. I can see only one flaw: the conclusion of the position on agriculture. I am fully aware of the macroeconomic situation; I am fully aware of the need for the European Union to adopt a clear foreign policy with regard to the developing countries too. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the agriculture package last week is causing me some concern, for, in actual fact, we have instigated a process of dismantling our continent’s primary sector and we have, in reality, started to destroy the one genuine policy which has allowed the European Union to claim the title of Union thus far. I hope that there will be a rethink once Cancun is over, for, otherwise, Commissioner Fischler’s position, promoted by the Agriculture Council, will affect what is not just a key sector for the economy but, most importantly, a key sector for consumers. In other words, we ask farmers for investment and commitments to safeguard the quality of foodstuffs and then we dismantle the various measures protecting the sector: this is a policy which I really cannot understand.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Naïr report on EU Mediterranean policy is more than ambiguous. It does not provide any basis to establish proper cooperation structures between Europe and the Mediterranean countries. In fact, while we can go along with the rapporteur on the need to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, we have problems with the report when it addresses other economic and social issues. First of all, the report follows the Commission line which vaunts free trade and advocates the liberalisation of the economies of Mediterranean countries. Point 21 is particularly revealing in this respect and speaks of “encouraging liberalisation of the Mediterranean partners’ economic systems and implementing the structural reforms required to enable them to compete on more open markets.” The report addresses the crucial issue of debt only in terms of reducing and converting the Mediterranean countries’ external debt, instead of calling on European governments to cancel such debts, as we ought to be doing. With regard to migrants, the Naïr report takes a restrictive line, referring to the administration of migrant flows and seeking to criminalise immigrants. Frontiers have never stopped the movement of men and women. To regard them as illegal immigrants is playing into the hands of the mafias and traffickers. We should resolve to open borders. Lastly, while the rapporteur recognises the Palestinians’ right to their own state, he makes no mention of their legitimate demands, namely the release of all political prisoners and the right of return for refugees. For these reasons I did not vote for this report. - Resolution on Plan Colombia (B5-0087/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I too should like to thank our colleague, Mrs Peijs, very much for her report and for being so persistent in her efforts to achieve results for the public. On 1 January 2002, the euro will also become a reality for the public, because then we will have the euro in our pockets. Today the average fee for transferring EUR 100 to another country in the internal market is EUR 17.10, many times more than the fees for domestic transfers. In the future, the euro area will also feel like a domestic area and the public do not understand why in this area, in which there are no exchange-related risks and in which electronic payments with Internet banking are increasingly becoming a matter of course, transferring money from Munich to Salzburg is considerably more expensive than transferring money from Munich to Kiel. The advantages of the euro need to be demonstrated to the public and also to small and medium-sized businesses, precisely because we are having problems at the moment with the acceptance of the euro and it seems to many as though large companies and banks are benefiting from it, but not the man in the street. For me, the argument that nowadays very few transfers of euros are made to other countries in the euro area does not count either. That is a chicken-and-egg debate. We in Brussels are of course experiencing this ourselves as Members, but our colleagues are too, that we do not make transfers abroad because of the high charges linked to the euro. I am firmly convinced that if prices fall the number of transfers will increase in leaps and bounds and people will avail themselves of this possibility. I welcome the fact that the Commission is maintaining its pressure on the banks and that it may increase the pressure further with the action it is taking against 120 banks. The European Central Bank should also exert increased pressure. The proposal by Mrs Peijs and myself also seeks to bring the banks together around one table, not to lay down the law, but because we simply cannot increase the pressure any further from the political side. Neither do we want any price regulation in this sector, but we should at least coordinate this. The ECB would seem the ideal candidate to make progress on single data formats and uniform bank sort codes in Europe. I also hope that the low prices will not come at one fell swoop in five years' time, but that they will come gradually and that it will already be possible to see some progress as early as 2002. At long last we will have achieved our aim if the banks compete on offering customers cheap transfers abroad. Then we will have a real market in this sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would first like to draw your attention to the excellent work undertaken by our fellow Member Mr Liese. He has developed and improved upon the Commission’s proposal. I think both the approach and the scope of the Liese report are excellent. Work on this directive began during the Spanish Presidency of the European Union. It is no accident that in 2002 Spain was the international role model for donations and transplants for the tenth year running. We therefore have a good understanding of this subject. We are also aware of all the problems involved in the transplantation of tissues, cells and organs. In recent years, very significant advances in transplant technology have been made, and the public has become more aware of the need to come forward as potential donors. In this context it is appropriate to establish specific European regulations to control such activities. The regulations are needed to guarantee all these activities can take place within the appropriate ethical, health and social framework in all Member States. As previously explained, donation and transplant procedures rely on solidarity. They rely on people playing their part in the donation system in an altruistic and disinterested way. It is therefore very important to ensure people will still volunteer to become donors for no reward. We must encourage people to come forward and increase the number of potential donors. Above all, we must ensure families respect donors’ decisions when the time comes. There has been much debate on whether organ transplantation should be included in this directive. While I believe we need Community regulations on organ transplantation, I think it would be wrong to include the issue in this particular directive. The directive would have to be substantially modified and this could undermine good organ transplant practice. I therefore believe Amendment No 6 provides a sensible solution to the problem. It rightly calls on the Commission to present a proposal on the matter in 2003. On the other hand, I think the Commission’s initial proposal, which would exclude cells to be used in the preparation of medicinal products from the directive is improved by Amendment No 21 which does include such cells. The most controversial aspect of this directive is perhaps the use of tissues and cells from cloned human embryos, because of the important ethical and moral implications. In my opinion Amendment No 30 establishes a number of basic conditions on respect for human dignity. I think these should apply in all Member States, although some of the latter may wish to take either a stricter or more liberal line on the basis of these common fundamental conditions. Lastly, as a Member of this House, I would like to convey my full support to those anonymous European citizens who, by donating tissues, cells or organs, offer patients hope and a new lease of life. They are indeed helping to achieve miracles.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, when I and my British Conservative colleagues fought the last European elections in 1999, one of our core policies was that the unsatisfactory character of the terms and conditions which we, as MEPs, enjoy should be revised and updated. During the last three years or so, we have talked a lot but realistically we have achieved much less. The key to achieving a satisfactory outcome to this problem must be the attainment of a political agreement between Parliament and the Council on a package of terms and conditions for Members of the European Parliament which are appropriate to the twenty-first century. These must then be converted into proper legal form in the manner envisaged by the Treaties. We must not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by debates and possible disagreement over the details of the mechanics of how this process of technical transposition is to be put into effect, because if we do that it gets in the way of achieving the necessary political agreement. Of course, that political agreement is the essential pre-condition of the next stage, the completion of the legal and constitutional formalities, and as said by almost every speaker, and there is agreement about this, that has got to be done by the next European elections. Once all the rhetoric is cut out, it is just as simple as that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur. I should also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs because they have worked very hard and closely with the rapporteur in trying to come to a compromise on this directive. I should like to pick up on a couple of points. First of all, the 'polluter pays' principle has been mentioned a few times tonight. We already have 'polluter-pays' legislation. In the past the polluter has only paid a fine, but we have had a fundamental shift and now the polluter pays to clear up the damage that he or she has created. That is a fundamental shift in legislation. If we are to enact that then we have to look at the financial security systems behind it. That is why I believe mandatory financial security is important. It is a key point here. I accept the point that Mrs Niebler and the Commissioner made that the market is not yet developed. That is why, in a number of amendments, we ask the Commission to study the whole market and ensure that when we finally bring in a mandatory system at a later date, the whole area is covered. I should like to add that we have also gauged the points of view of the Member States and given them responsibility for defining low-risk activities, i.e. taking them out. That is a major step forwards for businesses of all shapes and sizes. With regard to the Commissioner's point on Member State responsibility, I realise that he had difficulties over the last few months negotiating with the Council on this point and that it has not been easy. However, we have to come to a situation where if somebody defaults, or an operator goes into insolvency and does not have this insurance, somebody has to clean up. Who is it going to be? It cannot fall on the local authorities; it has to fall on a Member State and we cannot allow Member States to just walk away from it and allow pollution to continue to grow. Therefore the Member States have a responsibility. Briefly, on the mitigating circumstances, I am glad to see that the Commissioner is accepting Amendments Nos 40 and 61. I hope they go through. And I am glad to see the mitigating circumstances taken into account, along with permit defences.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, according to my group, the bombings which we are debating here are the wrong response to a real problem. Let us start with the legal basis, which is extremely dubious, to say the least. My group is in favour of maintaining the no-fly zone, but without a new statement by the Security Council, there is no legal basis for the present air strikes. The air strikes are wrong because they are counter-productive: Saddam is the hero of the Arab, and also the Palestinian, people, and this will only make it more difficult to find a solution to the Middle East problem. That does not mean that my group questions the fact that there is a problem or that nothing should be done about it. We share the view that Saddam still forms the main threat to stability in the Middle East and that Iraq is a country where human rights are being violated systematically and on a massive scale. I am pleased that Commissioner Patten has already mentioned that he is in favour of changing the current regime. We could talk at great length about this issue. After ten years of sanctions, it is not Saddam who has suffered the most, but the Iraqi people. Saddam has applied extreme cynicism to benefit his own PR at the expense of his own people. I am therefore pleased that most of you appear to be in favour of changing the sanctions. The embargo on weapons and strategic goods must remain in place and might even have to be tightened, whilst the current regime must be replaced by what are known as smart sanctions. However, we must continue to insist on weapon inspectors being admitted. We should not allow the regime to keep developing biological, chemical and even nuclear facilities. As the previous speaker has already mentioned, we should not forget Haladja. The international community must have access to Iraq and be able to control arms development in that country. Finally, with regard to the action to be undertaken, I would like to urge the Swedish Presidency to implement the resolution of the European Parliament of November last year, which requested an ad-hoc international tribunal to be established for Iraq. In this way, Europe would be able to play an autonomous role in world politics by exercising a restraining influence on the United States without giving in to the demands of Iraq and Saddam. It will also be able to exercise a restraining influence on Great Britain which believes that, through its action, it can act as a bridge between America and the European Union but which, at this rate, will be more of a hindrance than anything else.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I am grateful to Mr Solbes for the intention behind his reply, which is to safeguard and show concern for worker’s conditions. Nevertheless, the political analysis of the Lisbon Summit reveals that there were two proposals: one which was more social, more committed, which came from the French Prime Minister, Mr Jospin, and the other, resulting from a previous agreement between Mr Blair and Mr Aznar, deregulating the labour market and making it more flexible. The latter proposal won the day. If we take Spain as an example, it is clear that job instability, temporary employment and work accidents are on the increase. Do you not therefore believe that it would be appropriate, in the review of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to incorporate the Social Charter with specific instruments and measures, as occurred with the five classic points of the Treaty of Maastricht, in order to guarantee full employment and employment quality and that it therefore not be left to the whim of each of the countries? By way of clarification, reference has been made to the number of work accidents in Murcia because it has such a sad record within Spain; that is why we are concerned.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Monti, the reform of competition rules calls for a commitment by the European Union, not only in the light and as a consequence of changes which have taken place through the years, but also with a forward-looking view to the Union’s enlargement. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr von Wogau, for his commitment and I welcome his thoughts. Moreover, I would like to say that I appreciate the remarks and observations that Professor Tesauro, Chairman of the Italian Competition Authority, sent me, and which I am sure Mr Monti will take into due account with a strong sense of collaboration. Our real concern is undoubtedly to initiate further liberalisation of the market, and, above all, to achieve consistency between the different national markets. As things stand, there are considerable differences between them which come to the fore if we compare the English, Italian and French markets. There is a large degree of state protectionism in the French market which is not found in the English market and is only present to an extremely limited extent in Italy. Another issue concerns the economies of countries involved in enlargement, which may run the risk of remaining assisted economies for ever more if provision is not made for gradual adjustment. In my opinion, we should also create a threshold below which two significant components which characterise our economic structure should be placed: small and medium-sized businesses, which bind the European economy together, and social protection, which Europe has always guaranteed to the weakest parts of the economy. Safeguarding the social function of the market is what makes the difference between free trade, pure and simple, and a system for improving people’s quality of life. A point to consider regarding the new rules concerns the economy of the outermost regions and islands, all of which must be protected. We ought therefore to consider creating two focal points of an external market by instigating profitable relations with Russia and the Mediterranean countries, precisely so that their economies become less peripheral. I hope – and I thank Mr Monti for this – that the new rules will reflect as many aspects of economic policy as possible and that their social function will be guaranteed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Mr Swoboda's question on reactor safety raised the question in my mind of whether the Commission can make it clear not only to its own bureaux, but also to the Member States and their governments, and certainly also to the European Parliament, that we cannot, in negotiations, demand more from the candidates for accession that we ourselves comply with as Member States of the European Union. I believe that this is not quite clear to all areas of all our institutions. Perhaps it should again be highlighted in the coming year. The second question I would like to put is this. In your report, you are very optimistic that ten countries will have the chance to sign the Accession Treaty at the end of next year. As you have expressed it, but I believe it needs to be expressed even more clearly: that is the assessment of today. This means that, if countries fall behind next year because of poor performance on the political front, the list could well comprise fewer than ten, so that great individual efforts will be necessary and today's judgment will offer no security. To this will, of course, be added the issues of implementation and of administrative capacity. Your paper points out that work will be being done on implementation even after the Treaty is signed. What certainty will there be, though, on the day the Treaty is signed, that administrative capacity will actually be in place when accession becomes effective?

Political group: PPE-DE