GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, I should like very much to thank the two rapporteurs, Mrs Villiers and Mr Skinner for their extraordinary work and for their energy and persistence during the negotiations with the Council. I would also thank Commissioner Bolkestein for these two important parts of the financial services action plan. We can now create a common financial market within the EU. That is incredibly important and, just as Mr Katiforis says, it provides the opportunity for economic growth, continued competition and more job opportunities in line with the Lisbon process, which is proving far too slow. If we are to be able to achieve our objectives, it is important for investors and consumers to be able to rely upon the financial markets and their players. People have lost confidence in them because there have, unfortunately, been many scandals in recent years. We must therefore create credible regulations that are neither too ponderous and bureaucratic nor, however, too lightweight. Where the directive on investment services and regulated markets is concerned, the rapporteur has done some exceptional work. I think that Mrs Villiers has shown a special ability to achieve reasonable and understandable compromises. I should like to say that she has been a very good European. It is the view of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party that the committee’s amendments do a good job of balancing the requirements of investor choice and investor protection, as well as creating rules for soundly operating financial markets within the EU. I recognise that Mr Huhne and I might have gone further, but we can live with the compromises. They provide the opportunity for continued competition between different trade centres. The amendments also mean the disappearance of what are termed the concentration rules. Finally, a few words about Mr Skinner’s report. I myself have had difficulty with the committee’s wanting to delete the Commission’s proposals concerning mandatory quarterly reporting. Those countries that have introduced such reporting think that it operates well. That is also the view of the Stockholm stock exchange. One market player I talked with considered that those who could not account for their companies’ results and give their views on their companies’ futures each quarter had no place on the stock exchange. Now, there is a sensible compromise which, at a pinch, can be lived with: half-yearly reporting with a possible review of the directive within five years.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, what we have here is something of a difficult discussion. I am very pleased that the response has been given in this way, but I have to say that the answer is rather unsatisfactory. We have before us a proposal on which, as far as the objective is concerned, everyone is actually probably agreed. This objective is of course the holding of such a tripartite meeting. This is where all the problems start, however. The Commission is making reference to Article 202; the Council evidently does not agree with this, because it is deliberating about it. In anticipation of the result of these deliberations there is no wish to seek an opinion from the European Parliament, in particular the opinion that is being prepared by Mr Ettl. We consider this a totally unacceptable situation. As coordinators of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs we have also spoken about it and it is our view that if things go on this way we shall have to seriously consider going to the European Court of Justice, because the rights of the European Parliament are being violated. I also think, Commissioner, that even if Article 202 is used as a basis, you are not applying the Article correctly. You must read the second part of 202, which states that there are indeed cases in which an opinion is not sought from the European Parliament, but that the matter must then have been determined in advance and with an opinion from the European Parliament or that a kind of mandate must have been given. Now, to the best of our knowledge, no mandate has been given here. In any event, everything requires full investigation. I have to say, and this goes for the Council as well, that a lot of trouble could have been saved if the European Parliament had been asked for an opinion. Failure to do so gives this whole affair a rather sinister undertone. We are ourselves currently in the process of consulting Parliament’s Legal Affairs Department on this matter. It is of course possible to use a different legal basis, but I am sure that it will be extraordinarily difficult for the Council and the Commission to find a legal basis where no opinion from the European Parliament is required. After all, that is what this is all about and we are standing up for our rights. The rights of Parliament are already relatively limited when it comes to matters of this kind. That is partly perhaps with good reason, partly also it arises from the Treaty itself, but we cannot in any event accept further erosion of the already limited rights of Parliament in this way. That is the message I would like to give the Council and the Commission in their future deliberations. Finally, I have one further question. If you indeed proceed to act on the basis of Article 202, should the costs of this operation not be covered by the Council rather than the Commission, as has been the case to date? Perhaps it will be possible to give an answer to this question as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for Mr Bowis’ report and of course I want to emphasise the high quality of the work done by our rapporteur. Let me say how glad I am that our Parliament is finally delivering its opinion on such an important subject, while regretting that it has been 10 months since the European Commission presented its White Paper on 12 January this year. It was essential for us to give an opinion on an issue that is so important to our fellow citizens. Our vote has thus clarified the composition of the future European Agency, while also setting out our specific requirements regarding its funding and its independence. I hope that the Commission will, therefore, take the European Parliament’s demands on board. This first step must not close our eyes to the serious work that still needs to be done on risk management, developing and improving the Rapid Alert System, but also on ensuring traceability and public information. Far from representing a final stage, the report must therefore signal the start of a huge undertaking, namely the essential and rapid reworking of our legislation on food.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteurs, I feel that this parliamentary resolution is most timely, since it addresses what is possibly the most serious human rights problem that we face at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The situation in Nigeria is extremely delicate, but is not unique. It is repeated elsewhere, in Sudan, for example, although this has not been sufficiently publicised in view of public attention on Iraq, where events are all the more unforgivable since they are occurring with the complicity of armed forces from the European Union. I feel that what we are seeing is a fanatical sharia regime gradually taking hold, in particular in Southern Iraq, in Basra to be specific. This is a regime in which Christians are persecuted, alcohol is banned, western clothes are banned and veils must be worn, and all of this is happening with the complicity of the British troops on the ground. The real issue at the heart of the situation in Nigeria is Islamic fanaticism. This is more of an issue than the existence in the country of people of various ethnic backgrounds and beliefs, which is the case in most corners of the globe and is the result of the way in which history has unfolded. This problem must be combated, and we must not continue to play it down for the sake of short-term commercial interest or our oil-based diplomacy. This strikes me as the overriding message that we must convey to the Commission and the Council.

Political group: PSE
Both the White Paper from the Commission and the report drawn up by Mrs Schorling are flawed, the latter fundamentally. The report is based on the general assumption that there are a large number of chemicals that pose a threat to both human health and the environment, and ignores the positive health and environmental benefits to society arising form many man-made chemicals. Paragraph 16 of the report seeks to extend the REACH system to cover chemicals manufactured in volumes of under one tonne per year; this will lead to a possible twenty-fold increase in the number of chemicals requiring authorisation, and an impossible workload for those given that task. The scope should be limited to those chemicals produced in volumes over one tonne, as set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 38, which sets out which substance shall be classified as being of very high concern, is too broad for any authorisation system to be workable. The definition should be restricted to CMR (categories 1 and 2), and POP substances, as defined in the Stockholm Convention. The provisions of the report will lead to an unacceptable increase in the amount of tests carried out on animals. A report by the Institute of Environmental Health in the United Kingdom, estimated that 12.8 million animals will be needed in the testing of 30,000 chemicals. These figures have been echoed by many European animal welfare groups. The rapporteur recognises this problem, but places too much faith in the availability and acceptability of non-animal tests. Furthermore, to gather 'base-set' level of information simply for chemicals manufactured in volumes over one tonne per year will take approximately 36 years alone, according to the IEH report. The timescale set out in the report (2008) is thus completely unrealistic. The European chemicals industry has been consulted far too late, and its attempts at self-regulation (e.g. Product Stewardship, the Long Range Research Initiative and 'Confidence in Chemicals') have been completely ignored by the rapporteur in this report. Since the proposals in the report look likely to increase the administrative burden on the industry (particularly SMEs), as well as dent its competitiveness on a global scale, this is a serious oversight.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am not always proud of the fuss that goes on here in Parliament, but the URBAN programme is one of the best examples of our work: it was created following an initiative in Parliament. The Commission would have abolished URBAN, but this time Parliament drew the longer straw. It is good that URBAN is to continue, as it has had good results at local level. The problems in Europe’s urban areas are getting worse; fortunately, we now have consensus with the Commission. The majority of the population of Europe live in cities, and their problems are among the most pressing within the context of regional policy and very complex matters in themselves. There is an immense risk of exclusion. In many cities in France and England there are now slums, breeding grounds for many sorts of problems. None of us wants South American type favelas in Europe. We have to act now, before it is too late. Our cities are also of decisive importance for Europe’s economy. We always come back to the same basic problem in Europe: our economy does not support the individual sufficiently, nor is it sufficiently dynamic. The economy has to be strong for us to be able to attend to the problems of our fellow-citizens and our environment. This is not policy; it is life’s simple logic. It is good that spending has become focused, as otherwise the buckshot gets scattered to the four winds. Now we have to concentrate on solving problems in small and middle-size towns and cities, as they do not have enough resources. In this way we will also be able to speed up matters in surrounding rural areas; it is often forgotten that urban and rural problems in fact go hand in hand. The basis for all this is that we should be encouraging individual innovation and entrepreneurship, as group action begun by the individual will help revitalise an area internally. Granting funds without an economy that can stand on its own two feet is like carrying water to fill up a dry well: there will be enough to drink for a while, but tomorrow the well will be dry again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, depleted uranium was largely used in the manufacture of shells and anti-tank ammunition, many of which were dumped during the Gulf War on Iraqi territory, but also in Bosnia and Kosovo. On impact, the uranium is broken up into fine particles which are likely to be inhaled by human beings, or else they are dispersed into the environment where, owing to the effect of the wind, they can become suspended, and inhaled later. These particles emit alpha-radioactivity, which is particularly aggressive towards living tissue. Depleted uranium particles, once lodged inside an organism, may cause severe damage to the health not only of military personnel but of civilians as well. It seems clear to me, therefore, that depleted uranium weapons and ammunition fall directly within the scope of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights came to this conclusion several years ago, yet so far no action has been taken to restrict or prohibit them. Scientific uncertainty about their measurable effects on health is thus being used as an argument for doing nothing. The precautionary principle, however, would seem to argue in favour of an additional protocol to the 1980 Convention, explicitly prohibiting these depleted uranium weapons. This is what my group is seeking. Last week we were in Iraq, and at the hospital in Basra we were shocked and saddened to see children suffering from cancer and congenital malformations. The figures published by the University of Basra for the region are shocking. Between 1990 and 2001, the rate of congenital malformations has been constantly rising, and has now increased sevenfold. Scientists are quite logically blaming this on the fact that parents are contaminated with depleted uranium. We do not have the right to allow such situations, which are the consequences of real war crimes, to proliferate. Yet in Afghanistan, contrary to the official denials, even more powerful weapons were used, weapons equipped with a covering of depleted uranium or even natural uranium. These were guided bombs or cruise missiles. I believe that it is up to the European Union to take the initiative to halt the current escalation and to set targets with a view to the definitive prohibition of weapons which, like cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines, are morally unacceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am sorry I need to ask to speak again, but we cannot vote on anything at all here today, because we have clear and proper procedures. If we refer a matter to a committee, then we must have a basis for doing so, that is to say we need a document defining that referral. We do not have such a document. That is why I urge you not to hold a vote on this matter now in any way whatsoever. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I can allay the fears of colleagues: Mrs Frassoni was mixing up committees of inquiry and temporary committees. I will take the matter up bilaterally with her. - Report: Paulsen (A5-0449/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the Commission on behalf of the for its explanation and also for telling us that the framework directive will soon be ready, as will the Statute for European Companies. However, I should like first and foremost to refer to the European works council project, which our group has fully supported. I think the Commission is right to criticise how companies are behaving at present. The Commission report on European works councils, which we are currently debating in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – we have held a hearing on the subject – is most interesting. It proves that works councils have, as a rule, fulfilled their duties. We found out, interestingly, that restructuring, which may be necessary on occasions, can be implemented more efficiently if employees are informed and involved. In countries with more codetermination, such as Germany, there are fewer disputes and hardly any strikes in connection with structural changes to the economy. The spirit of cooperation and partnership which Parliament brought to bear at numerous points of the directive is such that closures and relocations cannot take place in the form of commando attacks but must be preceded by timely and comprehensive information for and consultation with the workers. This is often not the case. Ensuring there is timely information and consultation, before company decisions are taken, is a very important aspect and must be taken into account when the directive is revised. I hope that the Commission will introduce an initiative this year which at least ensures that the social partners are informed and involved. I agree with you, Commissioner, that the current rules must be tightened. It is not enough for sanctions to be imposed solely at national level; we also need measures at European level. As you rightly stressed, we need the framework directive, because in numerous cases restructuring takes place solely at national, rather than at transnational level. The directives on mass redundancies and safeguarding employee rights during takeovers also belong here. I would like to ask you, Commissioner, if there are any plans to revise these two directives as well? I think that the Europe of the future is also a Europe of the workers. Information, consultation and codetermination rights are in keeping with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on behalf of the Group I support this request which concerns a programme which must enter into force on 5 January. There is agreement between the main political groups on this issue and the Council also seems to agree with the amendments made by the Committee on Legal Affairs of this House. These could therefore easily be approved tomorrow. So, I propose that this recommendation is included on the agenda for tomorrow. (Parliament approved the proposal) President. – This item is therefore included under voting time tomorrow.(1) Finally, in view of the late tabling of the Fraga Estevez report on the COM in fisheries and aquaculture, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, the deadline for tabling amendments is extended until 4 p.m. today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the chief aim of an internal electricity market must be fair play. This aim is clearly visible in the Commission’s preparatory act. In his report, Mr Turmes, does not in all respects advocate the same way of thinking, however. The report does contain many good ideas. The recorded aim of the Commission with regard to the promotion of renewables obviously has to be supported. We really do have to invest in research into energy sources. However, we must remember that a free energy market will have to be based in the future on viable, free competition, and not on favouring renewable energy sources by discriminating against the others. All forms of electric power must have free access to the market. The harmonisation of taxation and aid schemes is a different matter. Electricity producers must be able to determine the prices at which they wish to sell. If the Union starts messing about with the burgeoning electricity markets, for example, by imposing rules controlling the electrical supply, or with guarantees of minimum prices or quotas, we can say goodbye to the free market. Renewables can be made more competitive by increasing consumer choice. In this respect the certification of electricity is an idea to be supported. If we wish to pay more for electricity produced from wind power than from other sources, for example, then we should be allowed to do so. To no good purpose, the report tries to define renewable energy by raising the question of peat as a special area. The position with regard to peat cannot be determined according to the same standards as biogases, for example. For that reason, peat must occupy its own energy class in future, so that its taxation can be determined on a level that is reasonable.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the EU/Chile Association Agreement enacts particularly ambitious, strengthened cooperation. Such intense dialogue should, of course, be encouraged with the greatest possible number of third countries in order to support economic development and emphasise the ecological values and democratic clauses of the European Union. Furthermore, we feel this far-reaching agreement has taken place too quickly, in particular given the impact assessment unveiled at the same time. It is a shame that the impact assessment did not really act as a basis for this association agreement. The European Union negotiations, which are very strong with regard to trade and, in our opinion, excessive with regard to liberalisation, should now also be based, in a balanced manner, around human rights and the environment. Following Chile’s dark history, all our vigilance should be focused on political rights, in particular the fate of the Mapuche Indians. With regard to fisheries, the Union’s interests for Chile should be balanced and only have meaning and a future within the perspective of development and sustainable management of fisheries resources. Let us spare the Chilean fishermen the overexploitation of their resources that has destroyed our own European marine resources. In particular, let us spare Chile from being relegated to the role of ersatz fishmonger for our Community ports. Lastly, we think the scope of this agreement should have given rise to a prior discussion of the same magnitude. This agreement, which aspires to be a model for the twenty-first century, is being dealt with too cursorily. Although the agreement is interesting because it integrates the human rights dimension and consultation of civil society, it nevertheless deserved a more extensive debate on its possible impact, both positive and negative. We submitted an oral question in this regard to allow a debate worthy of the agreement, but the proposal was dismissed. Far from constituting barriers to the implementation of the agreement under consideration, these observations – and we would emphasise this – are an attempt to increase its relevance and durability. The Group of the would like this twenty-first century agreement to become a beacon for a new kind of trade based on fair trade, respect for the environment and human rights. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament has repeatedly turned its attention to the problem of testing blood for transfusions and blood donors and has passed a plethora of resolutions since 1993. And there is still serious public concern as the result of criminal irresponsibility on the part of the relevant authorities in various countries of the European Union. The aim of the Commission proposal to amend Directive 89/381/ΕEC is to improve both quality and safety in standards for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of blood and its various components. More importantly, Member States can impose even stricter standards and blood moved between the 15 is not governed by the rules of the internal market. I shall be voting for the Nisticò report because it is in favour of strict standards, it is against the commercialisation of human blood and because, for reasons of greater safety, it calls for security of supply via networks of volunteers in order to reverse the dependence of the European Union on non-Community suppliers.

Political group: GUE-NGL