GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, let me just ask you to examine the possibility of starting tomorrow’s votes earlier, as I believe it to be unfair that all the other votes cannot otherwise go ahead. Either we should make an earlier start on the sitting, and hence on the votes, or we should defer some of the morning’s agenda to the afternoon. Whatever happens, the votes should start earlier, by which I mean at 11 a.m.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the Savary Report, albeit with some difficulty, as it appears to be a step forwards, but far from being what I would have liked. I do believe that regulations on the restriction of vehicle movements should be applied more restrictively in order to protect the environment and the public, and also to exert a certain pressure to develop alternatives and examine them critically. Apart from that, I take the view that it would be necessary to apply the subsidiarity principle in this situation and that tighter regional regulations would also have been feasible as a means of pressing for research into the alternatives I have already mentioned. Despite that, I still see it as a step in the right direction, even though it needs to be followed by others in the near future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, could I first underline the fact that Mrs Wallis has spared no effort in submitting this report for discussion. The report, as it was approved within the committee, is in my view a fine example of a document which has struck a fine balance between the interests of all parties, both small- and medium-sized businesses and consumers. It would be regrettable if this balance were to be disturbed by tomorrow’s vote, besides which, it is highly unlikely in my view that the Council would be able to agree on the tabled amendments. Allow me to explain why. The terminology, as it is currently before us, is clear. We talk about ‘contracts concluded at a distance’, terminology which, even to a lay person, is far more transparent than ‘directed activities’, as is currently used in the amendment. Let me illustrate this with an example. If a French winegrower recommends his crémant in French, a French consumer may well enjoy protection under the Brussels convention, because the winegrower’s ‘activities’ are ‘purposely directed in a substantial way’, but the English, Belgian or Italian consumer will not enjoy this protection because the activities were not purposely directed in a substantial way to those consumers. This creates considerable legal uncertainty and will lead to various procedures having to be thrashed out before the courts where each case will need to be examined individually to establish whether the activities were purposely directed or not. Secondly, it is crucial in my opinion that the report offers parties themselves the opportunity of building a competence clause into their contracts. Contractual freedom is a fundamental principle. If we deny a party contractual freedom and, with it, the constitutional right to go to court, I can foresee various procedures needing to be instituted on account of denial of justice. In my view, the Brussels convention is of major strategic importance for the development of e-commerce within the internal market and it will also have a major impact on the success or failure of small- and medium-sized businesses. I therefore hope that this report, as approved in the committee, will be adopted in its unamended form in the plenary tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I was wondering exactly what Mrs Thors meant when she said that the proposal was being ‘steered into a safe harbour’, especially as she was looking directly at me at the time. Mr Zappalà has been the main driver on this issue, but it has been a pleasure to work with many colleagues. I also want to pay tribute to Mrs Cederschiöld for her wise leadership that has enabled us to arrive at a very satisfactory outcome to this conciliation. I would now like to move forward. The Commissioner gave a very powerful presentation about how important these reform directives are to the completion of the internal market. They now have to work in practice. One of the areas we worked on in this conciliation was that of measures that will encourage Member States to get these directives to work properly. I make no apologies for repeating what I said in my speech at first reading: we know that there are far too many contracts in all areas of public procurement that are not being properly put onto the Official Journal system. Essentially, governments are allowing their public authorities to evade the provisions of the public procurement system. We know from good practice in a number of Member States, of which Sweden is probably regarded as the best example, that where governments take this seriously, the provisions start to work effectively. Examples include setting up independent bodies to advise all the public agencies in the country concerned on how to work with the public procurement directives. We need to make sure that this is happening. I would like to pick up on the point made by Mrs Schörling on behalf of her colleagues in the Group, and by others, that the contractual terms clearly have to include factors other than economic criteria – as we have seen from the famous Helsinki bus case. In terms of social and economic criteria this must be done in an open and non-discriminatory way as part of the published tender. That was the point we secured in conciliation and I think we arrived at a sensible agreement. This will be part of the new reform procedures that have to go out there and have to work for the sake of delivering and eventually completing the internal market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am sorry to take the floor to raise an issue which is not a point of order, but I feel that I should explain what happened today to some interpreters, officials and MEPs. All of us here today know what a problem it is to get to Strasbourg. I, for example, need to take three flights, starting at half past seven in the morning, to get from Asturias to Strasbourg. However, given that we arrive in Paris at 1.20 p.m. and the plane for Strasbourg leaves at 1.30 p.m., it is not acceptable to have a situation where, if the Madrid-Paris flight is delayed, we are left behind. Some interpreters were due to work at 4.30 p.m. and were unable to do so, and some MEPs, such as Mr Medina, left the Canary Islands yesterday evening to arrive here today at 5.00 p.m. If we arrive an hour late, they clearly cannot be expected to wait for us. However, if we arrive in Paris ten minutes late, it is not right that nobody bothers to tell the next flight to wait for us. This cannot continue, Madam President, because some of us have enormous problems getting here, specifically those of us who come from outlying regions. I would ask you to speak to Air France.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, integration policy took a step backwards in Nice – not a trace of stronger democracy, more transparency or a greater ability to act and take decisions. Which is why I believe that we need to use the post-Nice process to save the Union from Nice. I want to raise four points which I feel are important in the brief time available. First, I call on the Council to correct the number of seats in the European Parliament for the Czech Republic and Hungary immediately; there must be no discrimination against these two countries. Secondly, we need a clear, jointly agreed starting point for the debate on the future of the Union – re-founding should not mean renationalising. Thirdly, we need to convene a reform conference modelled on the convention, which has the credentials and authority to propose reforms and, fourthly, if an Intergovernmental Conference is preferred, it should not, in my view, be held in 2004, when the terms of office of the Commission and Parliament expire and they are unable to participate fully.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the proposal before us and the rapporteur’s reaction to this proposal are a step in the right direction but, at the same time, they expose the weak structure of European enforcement. But let us begin with the good news. The Commission proposal to lend more transparency to the information given on labels and on feed content, so that everyone knows where they stand, is a step in the right direction. It is also what we want, namely trust between the producer and consumer. The tighter measures which the rapporteur announced in his report and which encompass, for example, an exhaustive list of products, for which he calls on the Commission for help, is an interesting proposal and will only reinforce this policy. A second, necessary step in this process is to have exact data at one’s disposal. It is unfortunate, however, that we are still not, in fact, taking matters one step further and establishing certain labelling obligations with regard to energy and foodstuffs, too. This is the good news. The bad news is that those who tamper with cattle feed will not – now or in future – specify on the label whether the product contains dioxin or substances which have not been effectively processed. That means that in Europe, there is definitely room for improvement with regard to policy on enforcement, but also on penalties, and it means that whoever tampers with animal feed or food commits a crime. You could say that you can put anything on paper, but in the final analysis, power will also need to reside in enforcement and penalties when the rules are broken. Finally, I would like to note that, with this legislation, Europe is probably going a great deal further than many other parts of the world. It imports a great deal of its cattle feed from the developing countries, among others, and the question remains of how we can put our legislation on the agenda at WTO level and how we can solve this problem in an adequate manner, because it very definitely creates a difference in cost price compared to other parts of the world, and this will also need to be given due attention within the Commission and in future discussions with the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Today’s vote on the Resolution on the Middle East, which is supported by the majority of the political groups, with the exception of the , represents a major step in condemning the out and out war declared unilaterally by the Israeli Government and by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon against the Palestinian people and President Arafat in the Palestinian territories, which has already resulted in hundreds of deaths, a huge number of wounded and immense humanitarian problems and material damage, with the destruction of homes and of basic infrastructures. As many speakers stated in yesterday’s debate, the actions of the US Administration have also been harshly criticised, because of its responsibility for the way in which the situation in the region has developed. Equally important are the measures that have been put forward, specifically: the request to suspend the Association Agreement with Israel, an arms embargo and the possibility of sending a peacekeeping and monitoring force to the region under the auspices of the UN, with the aim of securing peace, an end to Israeli aggression and its withdrawal from the occupied territories. We must also demand guarantees for the free access of the media and humanitarian organisations to the Palestinian territories and we must support the struggle of the Israeli reservists.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, unlike my Liberal fellow-Member, I have not been able, in my capacity as spokesperson of the fourth group in this House, to read the Commission communication in the time available, as I have just discovered that it is 145 pages long, and I congratulate Mr Duff on his ability to speed-read this document! Mr President, I would like to specifically mention that I welcome the fact that the Commission is at present making a substantial and constructive contribution to the Convention and has presented its views to us here at the appropriate time, because that guarantees that the Commission's contribution can be taken on board in the Convention's work. In January we will be starting work on the actual content of the constitutional treaty, and I am sure that the Commission's proposals will play an important part then. Mr President of the Commission, I am in agreement with the objectives you mentioned, because this is a matter of making the European Union more democratic, more efficient and more transparent. I specifically welcome the fact that you highlighted the dual nature of the European Union as a union of Member States and a union of peoples, and I think that it is indeed one of the Convention's jobs to make the European Union the first genuinely supranational democracy in the world, as you just called it. I would very briefly like to mention those points which, on the basis of what you have just said, I support. I have in mind the clear commitment to the Community method, your proposals for enhancing and strengthening the role of Parliament, and the extension of the codecision procedure to all legislative decisions. I support the proposal for the European Parliament to elect the President of the Commission in future, and I also agree with your rejection of the creation of a permanent President of the Council. I also support the proposals for law making that you have just mentioned. I would like to touch on a problem that you did not mention in your speech, and that is the issue of dividing the treaty into two parts. It is generally assumed that this is connected with the fact that the whole constitutional treaty is to be primary legislation. However, no one has explained yet how that justifies splitting the constitutional treaty into two parts, and the question naturally arises of the different procedures for reviewing points of law stipulated in these two parts of the treaty. That is why I would be interested to know, Mr President of the Commission, whether your proposal today provides for different review procedures in the constitutional treaty. I ask because one thing is clear: under German law it would not be feasible, for example to facilitate adjustments to the ‘second part’ of the constitutional treaty, that is to say if it emerged that the EU was in practice to be given a ‘competence competence’. In other words, it must be clear that the second part of the treaty must also be subject to the ratification procedure by national parliaments in future, in which case, as I have already said, I would be interested to know what the Commission's line is on this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, joining together the words ‘social’ and ‘market’, as you are doing, is not enough to improve the economy. The workers, the working majority of the population, do not base their judgments on your words, but on the difficulties in their own lives and they understand all too well that what you are calling the ‘the social market economy’ is making 15 million men and women redundant in the European Union, which is actually one of the richest regions of the world. Your social market economy, in other words, means wide-spread job insecurity and an increase in the number of workers who, even here in France, are paid F 4 000 or 5 000 per month and much less in other European countries, whereas shareholders, who do nothing, take their share of the dividends from the massive profits made by these companies. So the market economy that you are glorifying in your report is a stupid, unjust and inhuman economy, which works by concentrating wealth amongst a small minority and by making the majority’s living conditions worse. You are daring to assert that competition provides considerable protection against the abuse of power. However, it is by bringing about competitiveness and competition that the boards of directors of large companies such as Danone, Michelin, GEC-Alsthom, Péchiney, Marks [amp] Spencer and many others can perpetrate this particularly horrendous abuse of power that involves laying off some of their workers, completely closing down factories, which sometimes means that an entire town will become deserted, just so that their shareholders are guaranteed some extra dividends. You claim that you want to overcome, and I quote, ‘the democratic deficit in European economic policy’, but the first step you must take in order to overcome this deficit would be to deprive large employers of their divine right to get rid of all the people who work to improve their existence and you would do this by banning employers from making collective redundancies and forcing them to deduct from profits and from dividends, stored up by shareholders, whatever is necessary to safeguard all the jobs that are at risk.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as Mr Sánchez has pointed out, there are errors in the Minutes, but not only because Mr Sánchez is included in the European Radical Alliance, which does not exist – and this has also happened with MEPs Bautista, Hudghton and MacCormick – but because I, although I belong to the Group of the , appear in the Group of Non-attached Members. I therefore respectfully request that the Minutes be revised since, to be quite frank, they are awful.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, I am replacing Mrs Riis-Jørgensen, who has other important commitments this evening. To begin with, I wish to thank Commissioner Bolkestein who has once again presented a well-balanced proposal for completing the internal market, this time within the field of financial services. I also want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Berenguer Fuster, for a sound piece of work, from the first reading to today’s second and very rapid reading. It is gratifying that the Council is, for the most part, adopting Parliament’s position from the first reading. This proposal will make it possible to make cross-border offers of insurance while providing a high degree of consumer protection. There is a good balance between a freer market, benefiting consumers by offering them more choice, better competition and lower prices, and the requirements governing the protection of policyholders. The fact that this balance between the market and consumer protection has, in the end, been established at the right level and feels reasonable is incredibly important for an increasingly cross-border market. It is basically a question of confidence, which is something we are seeing right now in the financial markets. The regulations must be designed in a way that creates confidence in those who constitute the market, that is to say the consumers. As Dr Tannock stated, it is not a question of harmonising all the regulations but, rather, of finding methods of achieving a mutual acceptance of current rules in the various Member States. I believe that is a wise approach. In general, those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party assent to most of the amendments, even though we question the wisdom of adopting a number of them. Allow me to mention the most important amendment which, in important respects, alters the whole proposal. In common with Mr Berenguer Fuster, I am talking about the second amendment, which we cannot accept. It would be unfair to consumers and their demand for security. It would also be in danger of distorting competition. We shall therefore vote against this amendment.

Political group: ELDR
There is no doubt that the Madrid Summit possesses political weight, as the states assembled at it represented 870 million people and one-quarter of the UN states. The few partial successes such as the association agreement with Chile and Mexico have not made the balance sheet since the 1995 Rio Summit a convincing one; I doubt whether Madrid will, despite all its avowed intentions, achieve a breakthrough in improving the quality of relations between the EU and the Latin American and Caribbean states unless the following three issues are considered in a dispassionate and constructive way. 1. Latin America is an interesting trading partner for Europe. The German economy alone achieves a surplus of EUR 3 billion from trade with it, but the real beneficiary is the USA, which is engaged in pushing forward its geostrategic and economic interests by means of the ALCA free trade area and safeguarding them against external competition. Europe is acting to its own detriment if, by failing to speak out against this or offer alternatives to it, it consigns Latin America to domination by North American corporations and banks. 2. Nowhere more than in Latin America are the adverse consequences of untrammelled globalisation shown so blatantly, heralded by the growing pauperisation of great segments of the population, even including the middle classes, and also by the crisis in Argentina's financial system and government. The Porto Alegre World Social Forum constitutes an opposing force, whose influence is also being felt in Europe. (Statement of vote cut short in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) – Fiori report (A5-0169/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
This text must enter into force as soon as possible. Some people will undoubtedly say that Article 308 of the EC Treaty is not the appropriate legal basis, that this legal base excludes the EP, in other words that it is denied codecision in this area and, in future, will merely be consulted. The arguments put forward by a number of my colleagues in favour of rejecting the text for this reason are relevant and convincing. Article 95 of the EC Treaty on the approximation of national laws which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market certainly seems to be the appropriate legal base. Yet is it wise to risk postponing indefinitely a statute that has already been awaited by the social economy for several years? I do not think so. I will therefore abstain on Amendment No 1, which disputes the legal base, with a view to ensuring that the text is adopted in due time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group in this debate on a resolution that has jointly been tabled by five groups. This clearly expresses our joint concerns about the executions of women and, more rarely, men by the cruel and barbaric practice of stoning and about the sharp rise in the use of the death penalty in Iran over the past two years. Seventy-five people died in 2000, 139 in 2001 and so far this year 250. We note the letter of 23 October from the Iranian ambassador to the EU, assuring us that there have been no cases of stoning in recent months and that directives have been issued by the competent authorities for the cessation of this process and are being observed. Nevertheless, we are not entirely reassured while sentences of death by stoning continue to be passed and while the use of the death penalty more generally continues to grow. The European Parliament and the EU generally protest against the use of the death penalty throughout the world, whether it be in the United States, China, Japan or anywhere else, and Iran is no exception. Nevertheless, we recognise that sections of Iranian society are trying to move on. Forces of progress who want to see a less cruel form of Islamic society exist and they are growing in numbers. This resolution does not threaten talks between the EU and Iran regarding future trade and cooperation agreements, though it is clear that this will include a human rights clause. The European Parliament, which has to approve such agreements, will watch with close attention.

Political group: PSE