GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my first comment concerns something that Mrs Riis-Jørgensen said. I am surprised to hear that Mr Prodi is now a Liberal. When I first met him he was an Ulivo representative. Recently I read that he sits with the Christian Democrat Group at their conference. Now he is a Liberal. The President we have with us in this House today is what we might call a tricoloured President. But perhaps he will have a little more to say to us about this. Now, however, I have something to say to Mr Poettering. Mr Poettering is, as we know, always very keen on dictating messages for others – yesterday it was Mr Aznar; today it is Mr Rasmussen – to pass on to the German Chancellor. What is really going on here? In fact what this is really about is the fact that the German Government, in the person of the Chancellor, asked – and was right to do so in my opinion – whether direct payments might not in their current form constitute an obstacle to enlargement if we did not reform the agricultural sector. Incidentally there is a consensus that they will. In July Mr Fischler is going to table proposals to restructure direct payments as part of the shift of emphasis towards supporting rural areas as a whole. I am rather curious to see whether Mr Poettering will then leap to his feet again here and say: that is an obstacle to enlargement! He will not do so, I can tell you that now, because at that point it will not be relevant to the German election. Whenever Mr Poettering makes a speech and expresses himself in these extravagant terms, his sole objective is to stir up public opinion about the German election. Of course this is allowed. There is nothing wrong with it, elections are an important part of politics, but it would be better, Mr Poettering, if, when this House was discussing Austria, and when we were discussing Italy, you had not jumped up like Savonarola and said that we were meddling in the internal affairs of Member States, only, when your own country was being discussed, to start working the crowds as if you were addressing a campaign rally in Osnabrück. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to inform you and my fellow Members of a matter which I consider quite serious. In a press release issued on 25 November, Belgian State Railways announced that, as of 15 December, it will be withdrawing the Brussels/Milan train which, for years, has been the main link between Belgium and northern Italy. Major areas are served along its route, which is also of relevance to the European Parliament as it links Brussels, Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine – that is, the European Parliament’s three places of work – and it is used by thousands and thousands of travellers. The press release states that until 15 December, the running costs will be divided between the various legs of the journey and that, after this date, that will no longer be the case. Mr President, at the very moment when we are discussing European integration and the need to involve our citizens and convince them of the importance of integration and the positive effect it will have on their daily lives too, this decision is particularly worrying. I personally and, likewise, many of my fellow Members, often use this night train to return to Milan from Strasbourg. I wish to draw your attention to this problem and call on Parliament and the Presidency to make inquiries and attend to this matter. Moreover, the decision will take effect precisely as of 15 December: close, therefore, to the Christmas holidays.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I welcome this agreement. It is absolutely essential to ensure the workability of the emissions trading system when it starts in January 2005. I want to congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has done. I have seen a lot of rapporteurs and he really has done a very good job. He has secured an agreement with the Council which is a practical compromise and which will reap considerable environmental rewards whilst providing for industry a great deal more certainty than the original proposal. I am happy that we have been able to retain the cap on the number of credits issued. It is a sensible solution allowing Member States to monitor and control the market and make sure it is not flooded. On specific issues, I believe we have been able to persuade the Council of the need for greater reflection on whether to include domestic projects. The guidelines we have laid down there are useful. As regards 'sinks' I feel we have the best possible deal: a prohibition on companies using credits from land-use projects and carbon forest sinks until at least 2008. We will find this is a very difficult thing to calculate and we need time to look at it more closely. Concerning big hydro and nuclear projects, it seems disappointing if we wanted the allowances for such projects excluded permanently from the scheme, but in reality Parliament has been able to ensure that the projects and the take-up within the European scheme are at least in line with Kyoto and the World Commission on Dams and the Marrakech Accords. It is not really a bad result. Our message to EU governments is clear: real, environmental improvement through emissions reductions must be brought about by long-term, sustainable effort at home and not by cheap, ill-advised and potentially detrimental projects in the poorer countries. Member States: we will be watching you!

Political group: PSE
Prison conditions in Europe are alarming; the report before us today highlights the increase in the prison population, overcrowding, the increase in the numbers of foreign prisoners and the increase in the number of prisoners awaiting sentence. A Council of Europe report also refers to the persistence of ill treatment and unsuitable and insufficient prison buildings, as well as mentioning the inadequate activities and care provided, and of the increase in drug addiction. I support the drafting of a European Prisons Charter containing binding rules for Member States. We call on the Member States to release funds to modernise prisons and to provide more suitable training for the police and prison staff. We propose more widespread use of alternatives to prison sentences. We would also like to increase opportunities for Members of the European Parliament to visit prisons. All the amendments I tabled in committee were adopted. They seek to strengthen several aspects of the report. All inmates must be able to take part in schemes designed to help them reintegrate back into society, so that fewer of them re-offend. It is essential to strengthen measures to prevent violence between fellow prisoners and prevent suicide. Special protection must be given to juveniles and women, particularly pregnant women and mothers of young children.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the Laeken Summit, the heads of government agreed to set up a constitutional Convention on the future of Europe which includes the possible incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with its costly, social and economic rights, and the direct election of a European Commission President, which I oppose. I welcome, however, calls for the EU to become more democratic, transparent and efficient, for an enhanced role for the national parliamentarians and a menu of options to choose from in 2004. The EU already possesses its own anthem, flag, citizenship, army, currency etc. and a whole host of quasi-federal institutions. To pretend, as the Labour Government in Britain is already doing, that this Convention is simply an opportunity to limit the power of the Union at the expense of the states is ridiculous. This Convention is much more reminiscent of the American nation-building exercise in Philadelphia in 1787. The political elites of Europe are ever more distanced from their electorates. How representative of European opinion are Valéry Giscard D'Estaing, Dehaene and Amato? If this is the court, the jury is a loaded one. How representative will the Convention be of the peoples of Europe? We should be preparing urgently for enlargement by solving the Amsterdam leftovers, and reforming the CAP and the structural funds representing 80% of the budget of the EU, not preparing for grand constitutional reform of little relevance to the concerns and aspirations of the electorate. How will extending QMV to delicate areas like social security and taxation help? And what has been done to resolve the problems of the much-needed EU patent because of the obsession with multilingualism in the institutions? In the European Union there is idealism born out of a desire to see a Europe of peace and prosperity, an objective we can all share. I come from a country with centuries-old, uninterrupted democratic traditions and I want to say two things to the believers in a European super-state. Firstly, the EU is not the origin but the expression of peace in post-war Europe, which is underpinned by democracy in the nation-states and respect for the rule of law. Secondly, idealistic political changes instituted by the political elites which do not have the broad support of the people will be like structures built on sand. Do not run before you can walk. When the peoples of Europe want a single European state, that will be the time to call for a European Convention, and not before. I wish you a happy Christmas.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am delighted that the European Parliament has finally been able to give its verdict on the three texts relating to maritime safety but I deplore the excessively long delay in achieving one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the European Union. The loss of the Erika, which occurred in December 1999, put the issue of maritime safety on the Community’s political agenda and it was due to pressure from the European Parliament that the European Commission proposed the texts we voted on today, almost a year after the accident. It took a second maritime disaster, the wreck of the Ievoli Sun, to accelerate the first reading of these texts. I voted in favour of Mr Hatzidakis’s report and I would naturally like to congratulate the rapporteur on persevering with such a sensitive issue. The mandatory double hull for oil tankers and the progressive phasing out of the oldest ships are measures which go in the right direction and are a practical response to the legitimate concerns of our citizens. The lengthy transitional period during which single-hull vessels will still be able to sail is to be regretted, however, even though the scope of the measure is such as to justify the gradual rate of their withdrawal. We must pay the greatest attention to amendments to the timetable for withdrawing the oldest ships which may be proposed by the Council. In all eventualities, the ultimate deadline of 2015 must be respected. The fact is that the unilateral decision taken by the United States to ban single-hull oil tankers from calling at American ports after 2015 poses a real threat to maritime traffic passing through EU waters, where these ships are likely to ply their trade. It is therefore crucial that the timetable for eliminating these ships from our seas must be in line with the American timetable. Finally, we must not forget that the mandatory double hull for oil tankers can be but a single element in a genuine European policy of maritime safety. This decision is important but it does not go far enough. Promoting more stringent regulations at an international level must continue to be the fundamental objective of our maritime safety policy. - Watts report (A5-0343/2000) and Hatzidakis report (A5-0344/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, research carried out in the UK on consumer credit awareness has demonstrated very clearly that consumers need clear, consistent information to be able to make informed comparisons of the products on offer. It is true that, owing to innovation and evolution, many of today's products offer the consumer more choice and flexibility, but many are difficult for consumers to understand: 56% of consumers in the UK did not understand the terms used in credit agreements, 77% find the language in advertising confusing and while 68% are aware that lenders do not calculate APR in the same way, they do not know how the system works and find it difficult to price one loan against another, which makes it difficult for them to shop around for the best deals. More importantly, it also means that credit providers are under less pressure to keep their prices and offers competitive. If this is the case in just one Member State, imagine what the situation is like across 25. This is why the directive must provide maximum levels of consumer protection as regards advertising, information and rules on the calculation of APR and a high level of consumer protection and redress. I would like to pinpoint two areas that the Commission should look at more seriously. Firstly, joint and several liability. In the UK, Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act provides for remedies and redress. I understand what the Commissioner is saying: Member States can go further. However, I do not want this directive to be used as an excuse for credit providers to opt out of the very high consumer protection that is already offered in other Member States. Cooperatives and credit unions were also mentioned. I am delighted that the rapporteur has taken on board the amendment drafted by Mr Crowley and myself. It is true that credit unions provide a very important service in that they not only offer affordable loans, but also help the poorer elements of the community – the deprived and people on low income – to stay out of the clutches of loan sharks. I fear that if the regulations proposed in this directive were to be applied those consumers in poorer areas would end up with no credit unions and no option but to turn to loan sharks. The voting list tomorrow will reflect our desire not only to see the opening-up of a consumer credit market in this area but also to achieve the highest possible level of consumer protection for consumers right across Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to say a few words about this report. In my opinion, the guiding principle we should all abide by is not only to talk about the internal market, but also about the European social model, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon model. This evening, we will be talking to one of the Commissioners about socially responsible entrepreneurship. And that means that we will not only be talking about shareholders, but also about stakeholders, along with consumers, environmental organisations and employees. Information and consultation are also currently under discussion. Not simply information, therefore, but also consultation. Having a say in the broad sense of the word. We are looking into the request to review the Works Councils Act. We argue in favour of an observatory for industrial change. That is what is happening on the one hand. On the other hand, there are also people who would like to see a European company statute, and who want takeover bids to be regulated. In my view, we should be sufficiently grown-up, to slowly but surely reach a package deal in which matters of this kind can be regulated in one fell swoop. At the moment, however, we are witness to a more gradual approach. Returning to this Directive, I gather from Articles 6 and 9 d), in particular, that these are only concerned with disclosure of information. I am drawing on my practical experience as advisor to works councils and trade unions, when I encountered difficulties of this kind on a daily basis. With regard to this directive, one could revert back to a situation where all that is required is information and where one hardly has the time to form one’s own opinion. This being the case, to say that the opinion may be sent along with a bid is a hollow phrase. I have heard such hollow phrases all too often, and I do not welcome them. What we are about to see, therefore, is a very strange coalition tomorrow, with divisions within all the political parties. I naturally defend the proportion, and that will be the largest proportion, of the who will be voting against. A strange coalition indeed, made up of people who defend the pearls of their national industries, as well as people who stand up for more say and better consultation as a matter of principle. I quite definitely belong to the second group. As Mr Simpson has said in connection with the postal issue, I would have liked the ayatollah of liberalisation to have had a bit more nerve and to have regulated this consultation aspect properly from the outset.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would protest about the fact that the Council is not represented here today in order to provide us with the legal evaluation we requested. It is unacceptable that we, as a Parliament, do not have access to the same information as the Council. It is unacceptable discrimination between the two institutions. I should like to have seen us in Parliament postponing the debate on the proposal until we had received the Council’s legal evaluation. Unfortunately, that is not what the big two political groups wanted. The usual demand for transparency is transparently not so important when money is at stake and national interests to be looked after. I have, however, received an answer from the Commission regarding the regulation’s compliance with the WTO rules. The Commission sees no problems. There, I disagree. The Commission says that the regulation will not have any negative effect on third countries. That is incorrect. In future, a Japanese shipyard, for example, will compete with European shipyards that receive State aid. In that way, the regulation will have a negative effect on third countries, for example Japan. The Commission also says that the proposed regulation cannot be regarded as biased action by the EU against South Korea, something that would be contrary to the WTO regulations. The regulation states quite specifically that European shipyards can only receive State aid if they are in direct competition with Korean shipyards. Korea is mentioned specifically, then. A more biased course of action cannot be imagined. With this proposal, we, in the EU, are doing something that is downright illegal. I urge that what was adopted in Parliament’s committee be rejected, just as I should ideally like to see the Commission withdraw its proposal and instead concentrate on taking WTO proceedings against the Koreans. What is the Commission trying to do with all these amendments to extend the period of the regulation and to increase the number of types of ship that are eligible for aid? Will the Commission confirm that it will on no account comply with Parliament’s requests today? Will the Commission confirm or deny that it has plans to table an altered proposal that includes LNG tankers? I very much hope that the Commission will answer these questions. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we agreed that we would take the debate on Buitenweg, not that we would spend one hour on it. For example, I have been told that I will be speaking just after an hour into the debate, so I guess the Buitenweg debate will take probably an hour and a half at least. It was not agreed we would reduce the time of that debate, let us be clear on that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, research policy is one of the areas in which we clearly need more involvement by Europe. Munich is one of the most modern locations for research in the European Union, and Franz Josef Strauss set a course 30 years ago which has ensured that there is still an aerospace industry today. As a location for research, Munich has never suffered from the fact that research policy has always set clear ethical limits. On the contrary, these clear ethical limits include banning research on embryo stem cells, the import of embryo stem cells and the creation of embryos for research purposes, for such techniques are nothing but cannibalism. Even if human life is saved through the killing of other human life, I believe this is ethically unacceptable. It is cannibalism. I am delighted that in all its decisions since 1988, since the Ghergo report, the European Parliament has adhered to this position by a clear majority and that the German Bundestag's Study Commission adopted this line, also with a clear majority, on Monday evening, referring in this context to the Fiori report which we adopted last week by a substantial majority in our Committee on Human Genetics. I think it would be most regrettable if this important, high-quality research framework programme were associated with any attempt to undermine the European Parliament's clear ethical line on embryo protection and the protection of human life. I urge to you to vote for the Scallon/amendment, and if this is not adopted, to support the Liese/Fiori compromise amendment and reject all the other amendments on this issue. The European Parliament's reputation is at stake: a reputation associated with its position, for more than 10 years, at the forefront of those who strive to protect human life.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to first congratulate those who have drafted and voted on Directive 98/44/EC which is a step forward in the protection of the human being. Unfortunately, companies have already been developing and patenting cloning techniques. While they state that they support the ban on ‘reproductive cloning’, they have already patented and commercialised human closed cells in order to treat age-related and degenerative diseases. A patent for these techniques has been granted in the UK since August of 1995. While I understand the argument that bona fide cloning experimentation may contribute to scientific advances which would alleviate human suffering, I must point out that there exists a loophole for the totally unacceptable usage of the human embryo at the stage of stem cells, cultures ‘out of their natural environment’. Indeed, this experimentation, under the guise of ‘therapeutic cloning’ is already patented, and the object of ongoing research. In light of this reality, I would ask the Commission to issue a particular reference to the patenting of the human embryo at the stage of stem cells.

Political group: PPE-DE
I did not vote for the Avilés Perera report tabled on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, not because I do not agree with the broad lines of this report. I agree, and am even certain, for example, that it is essential for the current and future Member States to take full advantage of the programming opportunities that exist with regard to the various forms of Structural Funds intervention in order to promote an integrated approach to equal opportunities for men and women and support specific actions in favour of equality. I also consider that the Structural Funds should play an important role in supporting economic and social restructuring in the candidate countries, with particular regard to the effects of this restructuring on the employment situation for women, provision of childcare services and care for other dependants. I voted against this report because I do not agree with the wording that implies that economic restructuring, in other words the change from the communist system to a market economy, has only negative effects. This is a posthumous glorification of the communist ideology which is not to my taste. I tried to amend the text with a more subtle wording. I did not succeed in committee and the amendments were rejected in plenary. I regret this and I wanted to specify here my position in this regard. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE