GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I shall also focus my remarks on the Green Paper communication. I would like particularly to invite Mr Byrne to confirm to the House that the provisions of last week's Communication by President Prodi on simplifying and improving the regulatory environment will be applied in full to the extension of his proposal. I would also particularly like him to confirm that he will be undertaking a full regulatory impact assessment of this wide-ranging proposal and that he has not excluded the possibility of meeting the undoubted requirements he has set out for improving the quality of consumer protection by means other than a directive. In conclusion could I also invite him to confirm to the House tonight what he said to the Legal Affairs Committee the other week, namely that the sales promotion regulation continues to have his full support and is entirely compatible with the suggested proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mr Prodi and the Commission on their government policy statement. I very much agree with the gist of the document. I also share the view of Mr Prodi and the Commission that in a number of areas, there is a need for more Europe and more integration, and rightly so. Areas such as security, the World Trade Conference, food safety, but also the new economy, require more action, therefore, from the European Commission. It will be a challenge to find a way of bringing the Member States, the Council, the European Parliament, the national parliaments, the Commission and all kinds of other agents into line. The European Commission will need to play an important director’s role in this, provided that clear and attainable objectives are in place. Clear priorities, focus, and, above all, communication with society to inform them of what we are up to, are the key goals. That requires from the Commission, with a view to subsidiarity, concrete plans which we would like to see implemented in the forthcoming programmes. There is, in itself, nothing wrong with emphasising the core functions, and I applaud the fact that the Commission would like to assume a better, more prominent role in order to develop policy ideas and political initiatives. But what also matters is the actual implementation of the Commission’s ideas. Take the Telecom sector, for example. Although we have drafted a large number of directives, at the end of the day, we still have 15 different markets and the 15 Member States still implement the directives differently. And where implementation is concerned, the Commission needs to ensure that our political wishes are also implemented in practice. Looking at foreign policy, Madam President, I very much like the ambition that the European Union should have as much political as economic say at world level. But then I wonder: if there is talk of a real common policy, of a system of crisis prevention and crisis control at Community level, where are the actual proposals then? Indeed, at the end of the day, we need these in order to verify whether we can realise our objectives in this area. Mr Prodi was right in devoting a lot of attention to Africa in his speech, but I have to say that I am nonetheless disappointed when I study the work programme for 2000. I cannot find any reference to Africa in the introduction, nor in the programme itself, and I do hope, therefore, that Mr Prodi will produce a proper file by way of preparation of the Summit in Africa. Madam President, words are essential, but we can only judge the Commission on its merits.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whatever some fellow MEPs may claim, this debate is not about emotions. What it is about is the extent to which, and the way in which, we can, and are willing to, remove the existing barriers to the organisation of the internal market in the field of tobacco advertising. Anyone who has read the judgment of 5 October 2000 knows that the Court of Justice has specifically opted for the first directive to be repealed altogether, because, on the one hand, it recognises that there is actually room for the legislator to take harmonising action and, on the other, because, as the Court, it did not want to take the place of the legislator. This was a wise decision on the part of the Court. I hope that we as co-legislators will act as wisely. This means for me that we should endorse the Commission's proposal without any amendments, for the alternatives are inferior. If we were to restrict tobacco advertising even further than has been proposed by the Commission, our ambition would run up against the bounds of our authority, and we would risk a new judgment. If we do not go as far as the Commission, then we would be making a political U-turn, for did we not indicate in 1998 that we wanted to go all out for maximum public health protection? The Commission's draft directive respects the bounds of the authority. This is not simply my political, but also my legal conviction. It may be a light-weight version of the first directive, but we have to live with it for legal reasons. We should not go as far as turning this light-weight version into an ultra-light-weight version, however. This is unnecessary and would affect our political credibility. Let us therefore approve the proposal as it stands. This is what people expect from us and that is also what we are definitely competent to do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Yes, Mr President, I must put the record straight on one count. I was approached by the Netherlands Haemophilia Patients’ Association to hold on to the no-payment principle, and that means, therefore, that fellow MEPs who have argued otherwise, are certainly in favour of safety and are also acting on behalf of their patient groups.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before we move to the final vote, I would just like to say a few words. Never before, in eight years, have I taken the floor after a report, but I think it appropriate that I do so today. There is no doubt that some of the amendments on which we voted today are perfectly in order. Whilst I do not want to revisit the subject of Great Britain, which we talked about for long enough this morning, some of those that did not get through had to do with the removal of duplications, for example in connection with the OIE's three-month probation period, which causes us concern. We were also concerned to give the report a coherent form. We did not succeed in that, but it does not matter. What I would like to say is that I am very glad that the ' Amendment No 25 was rejected. I also want to tell you why. The fact is that it would make the internal market fundamentally null and void, and, when your farmers vaccinate, you would have to explain to them that they were enabling British farmers to eat their own sheep and Dutch farmers to drink their own milk, since these products would no longer find their way onto the EU market or the markets of third countries outside the European Union. You simply have to bear that in mind. It may be all very fine as far as protecting animals is concerned, but there is no political mileage in it at all. That is why I am very glad that the amendment was rejected. Quite apart from that, I am very happy that we worked together extremely well in the committee, without regard to group allegiances, and that this report is supported by a large majority today. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, today’s debate is really about a struggle between openness and secrecy. We are surprised at how much in terms of resources it is proposed should be allocated to this area, compared with how much the Commission has invested in turning the regulation on transparency into a reality. It is the lack of balance that surprises us. Naturally, the way in which the Commission interprets the regulation on transparency also surprises us. Parliament and the Commission do of course disagree about the Bavarian Lager case and about the way in which the Commission interprets the concept of data protection in that instance. That is why this issue is so difficult. As a Scandinavian citizen, I am also very disappointed at the fact that the Commission never refers to the supplementary clause, incorporated into Directive 95/46/EC on Sweden’s initiative and stating that account must always be taken of the public when processing personal data. I would also say to some of the participating MEPs here that there are forces in Sweden which believe that the law concerning personal data should be repealed. I myself have also had experience of not being able to obtain information from the Commission in terms specifically of the law on personal data when I wanted to know who had complained about my country to the Commission. I would also quote what our legal adviser said about why it may not perhaps be possible to publish the list of assistants, legal advisers and members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on the Net. The reason was as follows: (the speaker continued in French) There is a Regulation No 45/2001 relating to the protection of personal data. It is doubtless possible to be called before the judge by the European Data Protection Supervisor who has very wide powers, greater even than those of the European Ombudsman. (the speaker continued in Swedish) These are the facts. I hope that we shall support transparency and that, here in Parliament, we shall at least be able to question those proposed for the office in question.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the vote in the Committee on Budgets was rather unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. As much as I, as a member of the Committee on Budgets, appreciate the work undertaken by this committee, and as impressed as I am by the labours of the Committee on Budgets’ rapporteurs, as rapporteur for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, it is imperative that I highlight two proposed amendments, which the committee is resubmitting to the plenary, and which are by no means insignificant, despite the small amounts involved. Firstly, I understand why people want to give the Commission a grilling on its information policy. Many delegates feel that the Commission’s information policy, particularly where PRINCE is concerned, has not brought the success people were expecting. In addition, the Commission’s promise to work closely with Parliament on this issue has left a great deal to be desired. In many Member States, where the Commission operates information bureaux, it is not possible to reach a broad cross-section of the public through holding conferences for experts. However, using the reserve instrument to impose a total blockade, is not the right way to go about things either. In view of the fact that euro banknotes and coins are to be introduced in 2002, I cannot accept the decision to place the appropriations from PRINCE in the reserve in financial year 2001. When could be a better moment to invest in information campaigns on the euro, given that uncertainty surrounding the exchange rate losses between the dollar and the euro, and the introduction of euro banknotes and coins, has never been so high? In view of the shortcomings of previous information campaigns, we could, if need be, accept a 50% reserve by way of compromise, so as to give the Commission the opportunity to lend an innovative approach to its information strategy, or give it fresh impetus. Secondly, I see people have been fighting tooth and nail over the mini budgets in the A30 lines. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has requested expert reports on this, with a view to receiving appropriate advice from the European Central Bank on the financial aspect. Should a compromise solution be reached on this issue in the time remaining, which supports the important work undertaken by the EMAC Committee, then we can arrange things accordingly, otherwise our committee will keep an open mind on the matter.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in my opinion, the issues addressed in this report are extremely important in strategic terms and also the most urgent of the European priorities: giving the Union the ability to act in the field of security and defence as well as in the field of combating terrorism, within the framework of a unified, coherent foreign policy. I therefore support the Morillon report and I will uphold all the proposals that give these policies more credibility and more weight: increasing national defence budgets within this Union perspective; allocating a proportion of the Union’s budget to supporting research and development; an integration programme to stop duplication and fragmentation; ad hoc cooperation or enhanced cooperation, should some Member states have legitimate grounds for not taking part in this undertaking; the transparent, effective integration of European defence into a renewed NATO and into the consolidated Atlantic Alliance, which must be preserved. After the very serious Iraq crisis, even those who did not support these goals before must stop burying their heads in the sand. A roadmap which is both practical and visionary must be proposed, as in the case of Monetary Union. The Convention, Madam President, must listen to the views of the majority of Europeans who, together with Parliament, are calling for a return to effective multilateralism and to a Europe which is capable of taking action.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I believe that today finds us again at an important and decisive point in the history of Europe. It is quite clear to us that small and medium-sized businesses are of particular significance in terms of Europe’s economic development. Whilst we have heard that in many contributions to today’s debate, we know that we are directly affected by many developments on the international stage, one example being Basel II. That is why we have decided to seize the initiative and introduce a pilot scheme facilitating guarantees through the European banks for especially small businesses. I believe that such guarantees will play an essential part in the future of small- and medium-sized enterprises. Support of this kind is especially important when businesses are being set up. My second point is that we have just got through the failed assembly in Cancún, the failure of which is attributable to the presence in the ministerial conference of certain persons who make a very healthy profit from their own system and are therefore unwilling to do for their national economies something that we would see in a favourable light. This leads us to believe that there is an urgent need for a parliamentary assembly in this area. We want to lend our active support to this in future and to discuss the possibilities with parliamentarians from the countries in question, with the opposition in certain countries also being given the opportunity to state its position on international issues. With this in mind, we should concentrate on representing Europe on the international stage, taking a share in decisions rather than just sharing in paying the bills. Thank you, Madam President.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European directive on quality and safety standards for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of blood should be modified in order to increase protection of donors and recipients. The safety of recipients should be further guaranteed, both through the traceability of the whole transfusion network and by guaranteeing highly qualified staff in all blood transfusion establishments in Europe. Greater safety increases confidence in the supply system, which, as a result, encourages donors to give blood. This directive, however, should also highlight principles. Blood is not a commodity. Moreover, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights states that it is forbidden to use the human body for profit. This is why we need to clearly affirm the principle that the service should be free. By donating blood, citizens are making an act of solidarity. This means, as the European s have maintained, that blood components should only be taken from voluntary donors.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to address my remarks to Mrs Thyssen's report, which I welcome, and I congratulate her on such a balanced piece of work. We know well the dilemma in dealing with a report that has to straddle the interests of business and consumers. We have before us very good innovative ideas from the Commission – an overarching policy, a framework directive – something we need if we are really to make the internal market work and to make a success of eEurope. However, to achieve all of that we have to build confidence in our consumers. The one area that concerns me is in paragraph 17 of the report, which I endorse completely. It concerns this linkage between codes of conduct, legal certainty and enforcement and how we get those three to really work together to protect consumers. This year I shall be drafting a report on the monitoring of Community law and therefore feel very passionately that in moving to codes of conduct we have to ensure we still have legal certainty and enforceability or we fragment the very gains we have made in the internal market. I shall try to illustrate that with an example. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent who had bought a property in another Member State. Something had gone wrong with the purchase: money had been wrongly deducted from money he had handed over. He applied to the appropriate overarching professional body. He wrote in his own language, English. He received a reply in their language that stated that they were unable to deal with his complaint unless he wrote to them in their language. If we really want to do business across Europe together we have to be fair and reasonable with one another. Codes of conduct have to be properly enforced.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the pensioners which I have the pleasure of representing in the European Parliament tell me that they are very pleased that I have voted – as I did – for this text, for I feel it is important and am waiting impatiently for Europe to have either a Constitution or a founding Charter with the status of a Constitution to which they can all appeal in order to call for justice whenever they are the victims of an injustice. I am sad to say that citizens throughout the States of the world are often victims of injustices, both as young and older people, but it is particularly distressing and upsetting for the elderly citizen to feel that he is still a victim of injustice. The Charter states that the rights of elderly people are to be respected by Europe, and that is why pensioners and elderly people throughout Europe are waiting impatiently for the Charter to become the Constitution of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
We withdraw the first part of the amendment, which deleted three words, therefore we retain the terms in the report 'financing the economy'. (The House gave its assent to the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0352/2002) by Mr Alain Lipietz, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission’s XXX1st Report on Competition Policy 2001 [SEC(2002) 462 – C5-0282/2002 – 2002/2142(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0353/2002) by Mr Philippe A.R. Herzog, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the 2001 scoreboard for state aid (spring 2002 update) [2001/2196(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Colom i Naval report (A5-0398/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, last year in Britain alone, 5 000 people died from overdosing on alcohol. They drank themselves to death in one session. Yet I do not see a directive before us to require alcohol to be submitted to all sorts of safety tests, or for bottles of Guinness or Strasbourg wine to carry the strongest possible health warnings. So why on earth are the manufacturers of food supplements being told that they must jump through a series of expensive hoops, which may be so costly as to drive some of them out of business, in order to keep their products on the market? My colleague, Frederick Ries, says that not all vitamins are safe, but of course you can kill yourself on anything if you eat enough of it. You can stuff yourself with baked beans until you die, but unlike alcohol or most pharmaceutical products, vitamin and food supplements do not have a track record of killing people. On the contrary, I, like Mr Blokland, have a stack of letters which testify that many do a great deal of good. This directive, therefore, is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut! Better labelling would have been sufficient to provide such protection as is needed, but perhaps that would not have been enough to satisfy the big drug companies, which are seeking to control a lucrative market. I remember the Commissioner telling us not long ago that under his regime we would have less interference of the kind which angers many European citizens for no good reason. However, when it comes to Brussels proving that it wants to treat people like an interfering nanny, this directive really does take the biscuit. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, let me first congratulate you on your success in the Doha negotiations. I believe that the European delegation, to which I belonged, did very well to bring the negotiations to their conclusion. We stand a good chance of completing this round successfully. Our hosts in Doha also looked after us extremely well, something which I think was a fundamental requirement. What Mr Hans-Peter Martin is referring to, though, is the dialogue with the NGOs, a point I would like to probe further with reference to the Parliamentary Assembly. I do not believe it is feasible for this discussion to be carried on every couple of years and at the same location. Do you not think too that it would make more sense for parliamentarians from the various countries to be able to get together over a period of time and jointly to work through this subject, which is so crucial for the future, in a professional and detailed way?

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I draw your attention to Annex III of the Rules of Procedure which lays down the guidelines and general principles to be followed when choosing the subjects to be included on the agenda for topical and urgent debates of major importance. It specifies in paragraph 1 that these matters ought actually to be urgent and relate to an event such that the current part-session is the only part-session of the European Parliament at which a vote can be held in time. This is an important issue. It has been on the agenda of many national parliaments for many years. But I fail to see why it is urgent in the sense of our rules.

Political group: PSE