GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
We are disappointed by the Council’s common position on this proposal for a framework directive. It is minimalist on a number of points, especially with regard to the dates of entry into force of far too many provisions and the number of, and conditions for, implementing the derogations. However, the main problem is with the definition of the objective which the European Union wishes to pursue with this text. The objective is of course to create, first and foremost, a clear general framework which will allow the law in this area to be simplified. However the Union should be seeking, beyond that, to improve the quality of both surface and groundwater. Public health and the supply of drinking water are at stake, as are biological quality and diversity and the conservation of rural areas and species. From this point of view, the common position is weak. I should like to see our Parliament defend a more ambitious position than the Council’s position, but I should also like that position to be equally credible. The “zero input” and “zero pollution” requirement, including for substances naturally present in water, is not realistic. I am not one of those MEPs who thinks that it is essential to adopt “extremist” amendments at second reading with the sole aim of gaining room for manoeuvre in preparation for negotiations with the Council of Ministers. On the contrary, I object to this systematically applied strategy. It damages Parliament. Our messages to our citizens and to the Council are muddled and lack credibility. Overly strict, unrealistic environmental objectives will not be applied because they are unattainable. Is that the message we want to send out? There is one other specific point which is dear to me: Member States should be able, if they so wish, to set up trans-national water transfers. This type of project complies with the principle of regional cohesion and solidarity, which we have always defended, and, as such, should enjoy the widespread support of the European Union in the context of the promotion of trans-European networks and regional policy (through the Structural Funds). I would like to remind the House that we adopted an own initiative report on the technical feasibility of trans-European water networks two years ago and I would be most obliged if the European Commission could shortly tell Parliament what action it has taken on that report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, unlike the Commission our Parliament is not really in a position to establish priorities. The main question at issue at present is whether we support the six areas of special interest as formulated by the Commission. The answer is yes, with the proviso that communication and energy should be added to transport. The European Union must concentrate as far as possible on those areas in which it has value added. A crucial element in this is a properly functioning government apparatus in the developing countries. If the essential tasks – maintenance of the rule of law, health care, education, infrastructure – are not effectively carried out, participation in the free-market economy is not really feasible. In my view therefore, the building up of administrative capacity should be at the top of the list of priorities. Even more important than strengthening the institutions as such, is the combating of abuse of power, corruption and unlimited force. The promotion of regional cooperation should also be given new impetus. It is better for us to do less very well than a great deal badly. It is a question of effectiveness. This is why the policy of the Commission and that of the Member States should complement each other. That is, it must not be a matter of Europe following the Member States or of Member States following Europe. The much-discussed internal coherence is also crucial to the success of this policy. In addition it is of the utmost importance that we can actually implement the priorities that we are now establishing, with the help of well-qualified staff. Reducing poverty in the world is more important than increasing one’s own wealth. Development cooperation must therefore be a major component of European policy. That will only be possible if this Parliament itself also establishes clearly defined priorities and does not get carried away in amending the sound report of Mr Gemelli. The Commission’s proposals now need to be elaborated further into a clear strategy. That must also be given absolute priority by our Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Surprise and anger were caused by the stand taken by Mr Verheugen, who set the tone for the unrestrained catalogue of dangers and pressures heard in plenary today. The Commissioner exceeded the remit granted to him by his institutional role and the need to respect the democratic rights of which the Commission is supposedly the guardian. Such stands should not be adopted when the common ground of all the Greek parties is that the Cypriot people should decide without pressure, assessing without haste the possibilities and the dangers which each possible outcome of the referendum implies. Apart from the viability and workability of the proposed solution, security guarantees and guarantees for the application of the arrangements are needed. This sort of stand by Parliament would operate beneficially in shaping the political preconditions, by which I mean support for the solution by the overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, so that unification of the island can proceed and the two communities can be reconciled within the framework of a twin-community, twin-zone federation. The resolution, instead of adopting a pressure line, should have clearly emphasised respect for whatever choice the Cypriots make and accepted the constructive amendments proposed by the and the Coalition MEP Μr Papayannakis on securing clear undertakings and guarantees. Following the rejection of the positive amendments, I could not adopt such a text and I abstained from the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The members of the Venstre, or Liberal, group present in the European Parliament voted against Amendments Nos 17 and 18. Basically, we think that the Commission’s proposal is too expensive. It is too early, however, to tie ourselves to a percentage limit at a time when we do not know more about the political content of the future financial perspectives.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I feel that we are making rather a spectacle of ourselves. I am reminded of the priest who berates his parishioners because other people do not come to Church. We are here to work and those who are not here to work are preventing us from doing so. Mr Schulz is right. This is completely immoral. Secondly, Mr President, I would like us to get on with the debate. Even if the fact that we do not meet the quorum means that we cannot vote, we can still debate. Thirdly, I would like to point out the absurdity of the Rules of Procedure and ask the President to see that the matter is referred to the relevant Committee, for our Rules of Procedure state that the quorum cannot be required if less than 32 Members are present. Therefore, if there had only been 29 Members present we could have voted and no one could have stopped us, but, because there are more than 32, we cannot vote! This is absurd, and we are making a spectacle of ourselves in front of the whole of Europe. We cannot go on like this. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Parliament has today voted for the accession of ten new Member States to the European Union. This does not mean our work is done of course. There is still much to be done in the accession countries, including the development of a properly functioning administrative and legal organisation and the combating of corruption. Monitoring too must be taken seriously. I regret that we, who for many years have been helping to prepare and encourage enlargement, have not revised our competence and decision-making mechanisms to make ourselves efficient and effective, both within the European Union and in the area of common foreign and security policy. I regret that in Nice we missed the opportunity to implement this treaty change. And yet I voted in favour. The political scope we had in 1994 to put the Council under pressure with the European Parliament and to demand deepening of the European Union prior to its enlargement no longer exists. This enlargement, which is of a different order, is again essentially a matter of the basic principles of the European project: political stability, peace and prosperity. The accession countries and their populations have been preparing for this day for many years, in difficult conditions and with many sacrifices. These efforts and the prospect of accession have brought stability and peace in Europe. We must not upset this result today. After all, political stability, peace and security create the conditions for all other policy objectives. The consultation regarding the review of the Treaty is under way and it is in good hands. Our hope lies in the Convention. Since I have confidence in it, I am also expecting much of the next IGC and I can today vote for it ten times with conviction. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I support the rapporteur's position. It is completely unacceptable to torture animals in order to, supposedly, improve ourselves. Contrary to what the cosmetics industry states, it is possible to produce and sell safe products whose ingredients have not been tested on animals. Many companies moved away from these archaic practices years ago and the overwhelming majority of consumers want an immediate ban. It is unfortunate, therefore, that both the Commission and the Council are still taking the side of the cosmetics industry and those responsible for profit-driven torture of animals. The proposed ban would apply only to products tested in the EU and would allow companies to export testing to other parts of the world. This is unacceptable. We want the practice to stop, not to be relocated. The Commission's failure to implement a marketing and test ban – which was meant to come into effect in 1998 – is completely unacceptable, and to argue that a marketing ban would face problems in the WTO is nonsense. There is a legal precedent. The adoption of the Dog and Cat Fur Act in the US showed that animal welfare can be a legitimate reason for restrictions. As far as labelling goes, I am very disappointed that the Council did not adopt Parliament's recommendation in the first reading that 'tested on animals' should be clearly stated on the product label. The consumer has a right to know this. In relation to CMR substances, which are allowed in cosmetics, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy reaffirmed its first reading request to ban CMRs in cosmetics unless evaluated and accepted as safe by the Scientific Committee. In fact, the committee's position on CMR substances has been strengthened in line with the latest position of the Scientific Committee. In the light of the fact that the Commission recently banned CMRs in its review of chemical directives but has included it as an exemption, it is ridiculous that a substance can be banned from paint and polish but not from something that is put on your body. It is completely hypocritical to argue for the continued torture of animals in the interests of safety, whilst at the same time allowing dangerous products.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am in something of a crisis as far as the Rules of Procedure are concerned. We are dealing here with explanations of vote. We now have written explanations of vote. They are used to ensure that Parliament does not have to deal with everything. We now come to Explanation 5/2003. In the English version, there is a reference to ‘crimes’, while the German version has ‘Verbrechen’. In the German text a Verbrechen is an offence (Straftat) carrying a penalty of at least one year’s imprisonment. I believe this to be too strong a term, and therefore when I signed I added, ‘I sign this subject to the reservation that the correct translation would be Straftat’. The same problem occurs in Danish: Forbrydelser also means Verbrechen. I would ask you to pass on the question to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure as to how we should proceed in such a case. The interpreter was in despair and said that 260 people had already signed and he could not now replace the German and Danish language versions. In any case I should like to make it quite clear for the Minutes that my signature was not given for Verbrechen, but for the correct translation of the English word ‘crime’, which is Straftat, a term that includes both Verbrechen and Vergehen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, despite being a woman of the South and not being a seafarer, which is a shame, because this sector still remains largely closed to women, I do not wish to miss this opportunity also to congratulate you on your new position. I should also like to begin by congratulating both the Commission and the rapporteur, who highlights some of the aspects of strategic importance to maintaining the high professional standards that it is considered will meet the needs that the Union is going to have if it wishes to maintain, and put into practice, a mechanism on which it legislated recently, intended to ensure maritime safety. This mechanism requires a new professional approach in ports, new competences in the field of inspections and, above all, new requirements for the seafarers working in the Union’s exclusive economic zone. It is true that all of these matters fall within the competence of Member States, but we have already seen that, in the field of safety, if there is no strategy there will be no effectiveness. We also know that 80% of accidents are attributed to crewmembers. This is an unacceptable factor, which has its roots in the fact that our ship-owners, and our entire maritime transport system, are dependent on a single factor that is decisive in human activity, for reasons of competitiveness and of the very survival of the industry, but which must be regulated within the Community and also in the international institutions, whether it be the IMO or the ILO. And yet, on this matter, the Member States have had no development strategy in place. Employment has fallen in this sector by 40% and salaries have also decreased. This has led to these professions, especially those of experienced officers, who are essential for navigating the specific coastal characteristics of the Union and for meeting the needs that I have mentioned, being taken over by citizens of third countries who do not even share the same language or the same ability to communicate. This is why, Madam President, we repeat that the Commission must regulate and harmonise not only training courses but also pay and living conditions on board and the safety of crewmembers, and it must also act together with other economic blocs that have unilaterally expanded the market, leaving it uncontrolled, or which have established protectionist practices, as the United States has done. We feel that the Commission is genuinely able to ensure – and is on the way to doing so – that the Member States continue to supply high-quality seafarers, in order not only to do justice to our past but also to our future.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner, for giving such comprehensive information. Mr Wuermeling and I are generally concerned about this as, in the border regions from which we come, the increase in the volume of traffic is not merely between 40% and 50%, but in excess of that figure. People living along the main roads in border areas have to cope with traffic jams, noise and gas emissions. When they travel to work, they constantly do so trailing behind HGVs from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. As a supplementary question, I would like to ask, as you have mentioned that railways are to receive special support, whether, in the meantime, measures have been taken or supported to transfer freight from road to rail in border regions, and whether you have had discussions about this with the German railways. That is my supplementary question.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Gislaved, Bengtsfors and Skövde are among the Swedish localities in which many people have seen their lives shattered when large numbers of jobs have been transferred to other EU countries. Through dubious and, in some cases, illegal state aid, tax revenue has been used to move jobs around within the European Union. One way of defending fair ground rules would be for the Commission – and I am therefore addressing, in particular, Commissioner Fischler, who is present here – to punish the Member States more severely if they infringe Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. At present, the options for imposing sanctions under this article amount to nothing worse than the possibility of industries’ and Member States’ becoming liable for repaying the illegal aid. They do not, however, have to repay more than the amount of the aid plus interest. The punishment is therefore mild in relation to what has happened. These limited consequences, together with the fact that few infringements of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are discovered, have a damaging effect upon the common EC market. The idea of the internal market is damaged through the distortion of competition that occurs when certain companies and certain forms of production are given unwarranted support. Small localities in Sweden have so far been the losers in the dishonest job trading conducted in Europe. For Bengtsfors and the province of Dalsland in western Sweden, for example, the effects have been disastrous. The Member States must abide not only by the letter of the EC Treaty, but also by its spirit. Naturally, cases such as Bengtsfors lead to people’s confidence in the EU’s internal market being undermined. I want now specifically to address two questions to Commissioner Fischler. The first concerns whether he considers current penalties to be adequate and sufficiently severe in cases where state aid is given to companies, as a result of which jobs are transferred from one European Union country to another. In such cases, no new jobs are created. Instead, a social mechanism for providing security is swept away. My second question to Commissioner Fischler relates to the answer previously given by the Commission to a question concerning the transfer of jobs in Bengtsfors in Dalsland to Portugal. Does the Commission believe that structural aid must in the future be redesigned in such a way that new undertakings and new jobs are given priority instead of jobs being transferred from one place to another?

Political group: PPE-DE
This is a positive report, in which the rapporteur divides women from minority groups into: women with disabilities, migrant women and Roma women. For women who are disabled, it argues for the Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be transposed and for access to be provided to education, training, employment and occupational training in an ordinary environment. The report also calls for these women to be helped to become more independent and for their participation in political life and in decision-making to be promoted. As regards migrant women, the report draws attention to incorporating the equality dimension into policies, programmes and actions designed to combat racism, discrimination and social exclusion. It calls on the Member States to ensure the effective application of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and specifically states that migrant women should be able to participate in political life and in the decision-making process. Where Roma women are concerned, the report draws the attention of the Commission and of the governments involved to the need to ensure the effective application of policies implemented at Community and national level that are likely to improve Roma women’s economic, social and political situation. This last aspect is the most important one, due to enlargement. The remainder of the report basically consists of rehashing earlier proposals and decisions. There is still a need for ... (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to reply to Mrs Schreyer, in a general way, on the comments we made. Mrs Schreyer, I believe that you will have been able to deduce – from these and also from my intervention in September – that we are very concerned about the need to rectify and reassign the amounts within the budget itself. Mrs Schreyer, I would like to ask you a simple question: has the Commission, given what we have heard here in September and today, addressed the question of how, in the budget for 2000, we can avoid the situation whereby, in the middle of November, we are still producing a supplementary, amending and transferring budget? And a final question: is there anything else on the waiting list before the end of the year for the 1999 budget? As rapporteur, I would like to know.

Political group: PSE
I am in favour of a directive which gives consumers information that is verifiable and meaningful, so that they are then in a position to decide for themselves whether or not to buy food containing GM material. The European Union should not require labelling of something which is not present and therefore not detectable in the final product. This is disproportionate, unenforceable and open to fraud. I am in favour of the 1% rule. I regard this is as a level which reliably reflects the possibilities of modern technology. I oppose the idea that there should be a requirement for the labelling of products from animals fed GM feed. This too would be unenforceable. Research has shown that transgenic DNA from GM animal feed is not found in milk, meat and eggs. GM technology offers us the chance to develop less environmentally damaging forms of agriculture, with less use of pesticides, herbicides, and artificial fertilisers. I believe that, with sensible legislation that takes account of the need to establish verifiable systems to indicate GMs, Europeans could reap the benefit of GM food and feed – and still avoid consuming them if they wish to.

Political group: PPE-DE