GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, unless the Community guarantees that citizens will be directly compensated for unexpected, major financial risks, people will become dependent on insurance. The more the state withdraws, the stronger and more profitable the insurance sector becomes. Everyone needs insurance these days. At the same time, consumers have a deep distrust of the insurance sector. Everyone fears having to pay premiums that are too high and that the small print in insurance policies means that when problems arise, one has far less right to a pay-out than one had anticipated on taking out the insurance. The premiums are deemed to be too high and the payouts too low. The ongoing international take-over battle between major insurance companies and banks shows just how sizeable the profits in this sector have now become. In the meantime, this report has made it clear how bureaucratic and complex the regulations are that the European Union must put in place if it is to bring a degree of regulation to the insurance sector. Arrangements must now be put in place whereby insurance companies are authorised, via exemption decisions, to join forces in order to share major risks or to re-insure, without breaking the anti-merger rules. It is also clear from the report that there have been all manner of complaints about lack of clarity, deadlines, and the question as to whether the current rules turn out to be to the advantage of the insured or the insurer. It would appear that there is in fact no question whatsoever of having the highly commended free competition, but a bureaucratically regulated competition instead. This begs the question as to whether consumers would benefit far more from democratically controlled, regional institutions than from bureaucratic competition. In the case of the former, everyone would know what factors are taken into account, how premiums are calculated, and that any profits would be put to good use, whereas there would be a complete lack of transparency in the case of the latter. I am therefore calling for a radical overhaul of the insurance sector, so as to make it transparent and subject to democratic control. Unfortunately, until such time as these improvements have been made, we will have to muddle through with the instruments currently in force. This is better than doing nothing at all. We cannot afford to allow the six-year deadline that was set previously, to elapse, without having put new arrangements in place. Hence my group is proposing to vote in favour of the proposed regulation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Gallagher’s report on the fourth amendment of the Regulation on technical measures was not amended in our committee. It was actually approved unanimously for which I congratulate the rapporteur. This also shows that our committee is in total agreement when it comes to supporting measures which aim to protect species, such as tuna in this case. These decisions must be defended by the Commission in ICCAT. This is why our committee asked to be consulted in advance and to be represented at the meetings as an observer in order to ensure greater and better control and to reinforce the European Parliament’s role. Mr Fischler, I am delighted that the Commission responded favourably to our request in the last and constructive debate which we had on this issue and has asked to attend our next meeting this month to inform us about the future preparatory ICCAT meeting. Our rapporteur’s criticisms on this point have also therefore been heeded. I must highlight the part of the report which states that, in 1975, with regard to the size of bluefin tuna, a minimum limit of 6.4 kg with a 15% tolerance in the number of fish was recommended for the entire Atlantic. However, according to the SCRS study, the regulation establishing the 6.4 kg minimum has been poorly enforced in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean fisheries. The WWF reports that, according to Italian, French and Spanish customs authorities, illegal bluefin fishing and landings of small fish are on the increase. I cannot and do not want to go any further as we are pushed for time. However, I must again congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Gallagher.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are great talkers about human rights in the EU, but in practice it is often the case that citizens’ rights are synonymous with money. Those who have work and can support themselves are protected by legislation, but there are large groups of people who do not have work of their own and who therefore do not have rights. This may apply to students who have to prove that they have a proper place at university or to pensioners who have to prove that they will be taking their pensions or own capital with them if they move. It may also apply to third-country nationals and especially to relatives who are third-country nationals and who are not allowed to accompany the breadwinner when he or she obtains work on the other side of the border. This means that those who are weakest economically are still discriminated against. The report proposes significant improvements for these groups, which in practice are larger than one might think. They are to be given better opportunities to move and an extended right to take up residence in other countries. In this connection, I would also point out that the right to move within the labour market and the right of residence are not the same thing. Nowadays, there are many workers who are sent on short-term contracts to work in other Member States and who do not receive any right of residence at all. For those who do not have a secure income or other means of support, the right of residence is almost nil. Freedom of movement for labour is protected by the legislation of the internal market. For the majority of people, it is more important, however, for their right of residence, including their right to stay on, to be protected. This means that people are not compelled to move even if they cannot support themselves. Radical improvement is needed in this area, and it would be as well to tackle this problem now, at a time when the Member States’ economies are looking better than they once did.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am sorry, Commissioner, but your replies do not add anything new. We all know that cross-community talks have reached an impasse and that the prospect of finding a way out of it by December are slim, to say the least. I should like to put two questions to you. First, as things stand, there is a clear danger that the island will be divided or partitioned and that, unfortunately, would prove that the Communist Party of Greece was right to predict that moves to integrate Cyprus into the European Union would have precisely that result. The question is, first, has the Commission considered that possibility and what plans has it made to forestall it. And secondly, we all know that Turkey holds the key to the Cyprus problem. The impression we get is that the Commission and the Council, the European Union in general, has not explored every feasible way of exerting pressure on Turkey. You referred, of course, to the repercussions which Turkey's stand will have, but I have a feeling that the Council and the Commission could turn up the pressure. The question is whether anyone is actually willing to exert that sort of pressure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, it is a joy to see you occupying the President’s chair. Allow me to start my contribution in this full Chamber by explaining that my group considers it to be a positive development that a lack of boundaries does not lead to impunity. It will not be possible for a non-EU citizen to abuse his status in order to break laws or, for example, traffic rules. We will soon be agreed on this. The problem my group has is that the implications of this initiative of a few Member States, and the subsequent report, are not restricted to administrative penalties. Much more is at stake, including decisions through which those convicted may acquire criminal records. Serious allegations may even be involved since, in some countries, thanks to the day penalty system, custodial sentences can be exchanged for financial penalties. In those cases, therefore, what is at issue is the recognition of decisions in the field of criminal law. Amendment No 1 of the report rightly contains the following comment, and I quote: “This requires a knowledge of the legal systems of other Member States and mutual trust in the operation of the legal system.” and this is true. But how does one promote this trust, how does one examine whether legal systems are fair, and how does one guarantee citizens a minimum level of protection across Europe, for example in connection with the enquiry which precedes the sentence? Well, this brings me back to what I have been saying all along about drafting minimum standards in the field of penal and criminal procedures law. This is important now, and it will be no less important when enlargement is a reality. My group wholeheartedly supports these administrative penalties and the principle of criminal penalties, but not until we have formally established the basis for trust by means of the minimum standards. This is why my group proposes restricting this decision to these administrative penalties.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wholeheartedly support this report by Mrs Korhola. In an era where many citizens, from all sections of society, feel disenfranchised and marginalised, the call for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment is certainly needed. This proposal, the first of its kind, could see everyday citizens involved in and having say about issues ranging from air quality to the protection of water. The report makes concrete and practical recommendations as to how public participation in this domain can be realised; for example, information must be made available within a reasonable time-frame. In addition, citizens would be entitled to submit their comments either orally or The report addresses many of the tricky issues that have faced decision-makers since the demonstrations at Seattle, Stockholm and Genoa: it could lead to greater transparency and accountability since citizens could act as both a check on decision-makers' complete autonomy and they could be more informed of the decisions which are being taken in their name.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I apologise for the interruption but I feel it is necessary because of Mr Solana’s presence, and because it concerns today’s agenda. Question time to the Council has been scheduled for this afternoon and is set to cover foreign policy issues. Our Rules of Procedure have been drawn up on the basis that there is no High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. However, today there is indeed a High Representative for the CFSP. My question to the Chair is this: will Mr Solana be present and answering questions in this afternoon’s question time to the Council on issues concerning foreign and security policy for which he is responsible? Will the Rules of Procedure be modified or supplemented in any way? Is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy to be outside parliamentary control? This has nothing to do with whether I like or have faith in Mr Solana. Personally, I have no faith in him and I cannot understand how someone who was a US stooge can now be responsible for European policy. It is an institutional issue and I believe that it merits an immediate response.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, many of us in the Group of and the have our roots in the NGO and activist movement, so it is very dear to our hearts. Earlier today we discussed the annual report of the Committee on Petitions, that is the complaints end of the process of evaluating what is going on within the European Union. The NGOs in our view act as part of the preventive process. They provide a scrutiny mechanism, they provide a way of making sure that we do not lose aspects of the legislation that we are doing. They make us think of new things and they are essential to our process. They are one of the few organisations which are really active on the citizens' behalf and if we are trying to create confidence within the structures we are trying to build, their role is absolutely essential. It is really important that they are there to counterbalance a lot of the business interests which do not seem to have financial difficulties in finding a path to our door, whereas for a lot of NGOs working internationally is enormously expensive. The work we have been doing in various committees over the last few weeks on Article 13, the anti-discrimination article, would have been impossible without the input of those bodies. So the need to sort out a clear legal basis for their participation, and hence their funding, is absolutely essential, because this body cannot work properly without them. Reference was made to the applicant countries, and I would echo the words of my colleague, Mr Pronk, that the NGO and civil society movement in those countries is going to be essential if we are going to have a European Union based on values of justice and democracy. I would urge that we find a way of establishing a serious and reliable funding mechanism for those organisations that represent the poor, the excluded and the discriminated against at least, so that they are not scrabbling for funds every year, wondering if they are going to survive so they can do the job they exist to do.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, national constitutions either fail to incorporate social fundamental rights, individual freedom rights and environmental protection or do so to an unsatisfactory extent. Some proponents of a European constitution or a Charter, by way of an interim step in this direction, see this as an opportunity to make up lost ground in one fell swoop. There are other proponents of a European constitution who see things differently. They want a propaganda document, the main aim of which will be to describe the current European Union and justify the future development of a single European superstate, and from which no new rights whatsoever ensue from the point of view of EU citizens. I support the first aim and reject the second. The draft Charter of Fundamental Rights within the European Union is a vague compromise between these two conflicting views, with the second taking precedence over the first. For some rights it will even mean a retrograde step. That is why this document is not yet ready for decision-making. In the short term, it is far more important for the European Union to give its commitment to the already existing European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe. In the meantime, the draft Charter can serve as an interesting subject for debate amongst the parties, trade unions, environmental organisations, churches and the many other groupings in the Member States and the candidate states of the Union, regarding future cooperation between European nations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the thoughts and prayers of my British Conservative colleagues today are with the men and women of my country's armed forces on whom has fallen the heavy and dangerous responsibility of disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. The international community has long recognised the threat that Saddam poses for the security of our world, but our institutions have sadly failed to implement its decisions and bring about Iraqi disarmament as the UN has demanded in 17 resolutions. I have to say that, listening to this debate, I quite wonder whether some people ever intended that these resolutions should be implemented. Today is not a day, however, to argue our differences over the reasons for this. As the Commissioner has said, there are lessons which the UN, NATO and Europe will have to learn for the future. That includes the practical reality of reaching a full European consensus when there clearly is division - there is even division in this debate. It is because our first responsibility is for the defence and security of our people and the preservation of our democratic values - the very values which defend the freedom to participate in demonstrations such as those we have seen throughout Europe in recent days - that my party has given its clear support to the British Government and helped the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to secure a major and decisive vote of confidence in our Parliament last Tuesday evening. Now that the war has started, the eyes of the world have clearly moved elsewhere, but I welcome the publication of the road map to peace in the Middle East and believe it should not be treated in the cynical way in which it has been referred to in this debate today. If we are committed to peace in the Middle East we should all welcome that announcement. I also welcome the recognition of the role of the UN in post-war reconstruction in Iraq. I am very encouraged by what Commissioner Patten had to say today about reconstruction after what I thought was a rather different message last week. There is no doubt that we enjoy peace, democracy and freedom of expression because European history has told us that the last generation, including the United States led by Roosevelt, fought to preserve these freedoms. Failure to confront Hussein now would create dangers to those freedoms in the future. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the European Union's Chief Election Observer during the 2000 and 2001 elections, I witnessed at first hand the terrible consequences of violence in Sri Lanka. I was therefore particularly pleased to be there on the historic occasion of the signing of the ceasefire agreement, which hopefully will herald a new dawn of peace and prosperity underpinned by the strengthening of human rights. I acknowledge the courage shown by those who are signatories to this agreement and the role that the Norwegian Government and its Ambassador to Sri Lanka played in bringing it about. I also recognise that the silencing of guns, though welcome, is not peace, but merely the first tentative step on the road to peace. It is only realistic to expect that many problems will lie ahead – some will be minor, others more serious. However, if good-will and determination exist on all sides, and the LTTE recognises that the only way forward is exclusively through peaceful dialogue, nothing will be allowed to derail the peace process. It is much better to be guarantors of a peaceful future than prisoners of the past. The prime minister and the leader of the Tamil Tigers, together with their supporters, have indeed taken huge risks for peace. Their efforts deserve to be rewarded by the international community, including the European Union. As well as providing important political and moral support the international community should provide substantial funding to underwrite the peace process. If the people of Sri Lanka, especially the doubters, were able to see that there is a peace dividend, this would underpin the agreement and encourage support for it. It is much better for the international community to invest in peace now rather than having to spend money later picking up the pieces caused by continued conflict and violence. I wish Sri Lanka well and I would urge all the political leaders on the island and its citizens to support this peace process and cherish the hope that it will bring permanent peace to their country.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last year, only a few votes prevented the inclusion of the continuing human-rights abuses in China on the agenda in Geneva. I hope we can be more successful in the coming months in winning over countries that will be represented on the Commission on Human Rights at its 57th session. Last weekend, in my role as chairman of the Tibet Intergroup of the European Parliament, I attended a conference in Switzerland, where parliamentarians from the EU Member States, the applicant countries and the United States discussed ways of inducing their respective countries to raise the issue of China's gross violations of human rights. These abuses not only affect the Tibetans but the Uighurs and Mongols too. Free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement are suppressed. The Tibetans cannot practise their own religion or celebrate their own culture and certainly cannot engage in autonomous political activity. Tens of thousands of them have been subjected to persecution, imprisonment and torture. A sustained campaign is being conducted with a view to converting Buddhist believers into atheists. We cannot close our eyes to this second cultural revolution. I am not unaware, Commissioner Vitorino, of the dialogue between the European Union and China. Nor am I unaware of the role played by China as a member of the WTO and a future global power. Attempts are being made to deal more sensitively with major trading partners. I trust that, some day, the old guard of blinkered centralist leaders will be replaced by new reformist elements. But we cannot wait until that day finally dawns. We cannot be passive onlookers and fail these masses of people who are being subjected to mental and physical cruelty. Human rights are not a Western invention. The new agreements between the European Union and third countries rightly stipulate that contractual obligations will be suspended in the event of either party's failure to respect human rights. We therefore appeal to the Council and Member States of the EU to take the initiative in Geneva this time; as you said, Mr Danielsson, we are one of the key players. Along with the United States, Canada and, as I have learned, Switzerland and the applicant countries for accession to the EU, we should try to convince the countries of Africa, Asia and South America that it is high time the subject of China was put on the agenda in Geneva. Human rights are not of secondary importance. Human rights are universal fundamental rights.

Political group: PPE-DE