GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, this point may be of some interest to the House. Honourable Members may recall voting in the mini-part-session on the Foster report on common rules in the field of civil aviation security. This report had to be brought forward very quickly in the light of the events of 11 September. We were then awaiting the response from the Transport Council meeting last Friday and everyone hoped that a common position would be reached. I should like to inform the House that the Transport Council and Member States did not reach a common position, despite urgent appeals from all sides on the desperate need for these measures and despite the fact that this Parliament had bent over backwards to do its very best in a very short period of time. The behaviour of the Member States and the Council in all of this has been quite appalling. This is probably one of the most important measures that has come through since 11 September and it would have affected 38 European countries. I will keep this House informed as to progress but I would like you, Madam President, to pass on our comments to the presidency. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just before I went down into the Chamber, I received an e-mail with a quite emotional description from a Swedish woman who had chosen to spend New Year’s Eve on the French coast in Brittany instead of staying at home and celebrating with her relatives. Like many other hundreds of volunteers, she had seen the destruction, washed birds and cleaned up after the people responsible who were not to be found on the coast on those evenings and nights when they really should have been required to be there. Like so many others, I too wonder where the people responsible are. Where are the shipowners and those who order the shipments when these disasters occur? Perhaps it might be time for us to begin to consider establishing a common environmental authority which could deal with this type of crime. This is not the first time we have seen oil slicks, whether intentional or unintentional. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, why are the proposals now put before us so important? Some Member States have indeed so far neglected to adequately back up Community regulations on environmental protection with the threat of sanctions. It was thus that the number of violations in the environmental field identified by the Commission rose from 612 in 1999 to 755 in 2000. As a member of the Committee on Petitions, I would like to add that such cases are increasingly brought to light as a result of petitions being submitted. It is our EU's citizens themselves who have developed a feel for environmental concerns and who increasingly report such offences or who turn to us in search of help for frequent lack of protection on the part of their Member State. It would, then, be great if governments could demonstrate something like the same degree of environmental awareness as do their citizens. In 2000, the Commission took Member States to the European Court of Justice in connection with 39 cases, and so it is time for us to respond on an EU-wide basis. In doing so, it is not our intention to annul national criminal law – the directive applies only to activities in defence of Community environment law and the regulations by means of which the Member States have hitherto transposed it. We are laying down only minimum requirements for the protection of the environment through criminal law, so that the retention or creation of stricter safeguards is left to the Member States. What this directive combats above all is environmental pollution that is attributable to private individuals or corporate bodies, in which respect inducement must incur a penalty in the same way as active behaviour and failure to act where there is a legal duty to do so. Environmental offences still appear to be regarded as excusable peccadilloes in some Member States. That must come to an end. The directive, like the framework decision, is necessary, appropriate, and proportionate to that purpose.

Political group: PPE-DE
As a former member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I read attentively the first annual report of the European Bank whose work I try to monitor closely. This is the reason why I cannot but approve the action of the rapporteur in deploring the lack of transparency in the ECB. Some progress has certainly been achieved, but this falls a long way short in comparison to the information made available by other central banks. Considering its high degree of autonomy, it is essential for the ECB to ensure a high level of transparency regarding decision-making on monetary policy. This would provide a guarantee of its credibility. I find it deplorable, for example, that Mr Duisenberg is opposed to the publication of detailed minutes of meetings, even though this is common practice in many central banks. I support the proposal of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs requesting that brief reports of the meetings of the Governing Council should be made available to the EP, outlining the arguments “for” or “against” the decisions taken and the reasons for these decisions. I think it essential, furthermore, that, in order to promote effective collaboration between the ECB and the EP, the ECB President should be willing to brief Parliament regarding any significant decision on monetary policy. I shall also insist on one requirement which the EP expressed with regard to the ECB. The Bank must endeavour to consider monetary policy in terms of sustainable growth and employment. The objective of price stability is not an end in itself; monetary policy must contribute to growth and the creation of jobs. I am taking advantage of this opportunity to express my views on the ECB to mention a problem which I feel strongly about, and which I have had to denounce on several occasions, the bank charges which some banks add to euro transactions. These problems are far from being resolved and they are still affecting European citizens within the euro area. An initiative must be taken as quickly as possible to put an end to these practices which have been denounced on many occasions by the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his careful, accurate and detailed analysis of this case. While I am now reasonably content with the outcome of Mr Perry's report, I must, in the interests of balance, make some comments. Mr Perry's explanatory statement does not give a fair and balanced account of the circumstances surrounding the underwriting losses of Lloyd's members in the 1980s. I would cite in particular its highly selective use of material and its failure to reflect the full findings of the UK Court of Appeal in the Jaffrey case, including its view that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that reserves established by syndicates for asbestos liabilities in the 1980s proved to be inadequate, given the unanticipated way in which those liabilities developed. Of course I have tremendous sympathy for the Names who suffered these underwriting losses, among whom are a number of my friends, including the godparents of one of my own children. Yet, since I became involved in this case, I have been subjected to a torrent of abuse and vituperation, including anonymous abusive telephone calls to my home accusing me of being a paid agent of Lloyd's. Since 97% of the Lloyd's Names have accepted the renewal plan of 1996 and they have been able to reduce their liabilities by significant amounts, this issue has by and large been covered fully. As stated in all the advertisements: you cannot guarantee that past profit is an indication of future gain. The focus of Mr Perry's report and the real allegation of the petitioners is, as I understand it, that the UK Government failed to implement the terms of EU insurance law correctly in its supervision of Lloyd's. The UK Government denies this allegation. The real place to adjudicate, therefore, is in a court of law. That is exactly what is happening, as there is now such a case before the English High Court. These are complex legal issues. Parliament should let the legal process run its course and allow the Court to reach a proper decision. Meanwhile, I encourage the Commission to respond to those issues raised in this report and to reply as fully as possible. While we need answers as soon as is reasonable, I would caution against a rush to judgment. In conclusion, I urge this House to support Mr Perry's amended report and, until the due process has been exhausted, go no further.

Political group: PPE-DE
Tax issues are by their nature very thorny, something attributable, as much as to anything else, to the great differences between one country’s system and another’s; for example, the Scandinavian states, in particular, use high levels of excise duty to fund their extremely generous social security systems. Our practice is to fund pensions – to take one example – using employers’ and employees’ contributions, albeit on a participatory basis. In the EU, we agreed, at the beginning of the 1990s, to lay down only minimum rates and to retain unanimity in the Council on matters relating to this. Despite the issue’s sensitivity, efforts were made, when this proposal was discussed, to abolish the unanimity principle with effect from 2010. Decisions as important as that are taken while revising the Treaties or the Constitutional Treaty and not when consulting Parliament on a draft directive. Turning to the taxation of fuel, harmonised minimum rates for Luxembourg (and other Member States) always go hand in hand with an increase in tax, and thus, in fact, with an increase in prices. Although Luxembourg’s specific situation meant that it was allowed a temporary derogation, this is no reason to bring forward from 2010 to 2008 the second phase for the application of the minimum rates. I am sure that the thinking behind the rapporteur’s amendment was that it would benefit the environment if higher fuel prices were to deter consumers from using their own cars. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure.)

Political group: PPE-DE
Pension rights are not being dealt with as a basic requirement of the working classes which the state has a responsibility to satisfy, they are being dealt with as an ‘indicator’, an ‘expense’ which undermines the objectives of the stability pact and prevents big business from increasing its profits. ‘Meeting social objectives’ and maintaining economic viability are being used to promote a policy which tramples all over workers' social insurance rights in a bid to reduce the price of labour. The sole purpose of insurance reforms in the context of capitalist restructuring is to abolish workers' rights, extend flexible forms of employment and commercialise health and welfare, while the insurance funds gamble their reserves on the stock exchange. The need to reduce state expenditure and the need for action to resolve the demographic problem, for which the system and anti-grass roots policies are to blame, are being used as a cover-up in order to abolish basic rights, increase the retirement age, extend working life to lifelong work and convert pensions to welfare benefits, while the problem of unemployment is getting worse and part-time employment is increasing. Statements about the dignity and independence of the elderly are hypocritical and misleading, given that 70% of pensioners live below the poverty line, as are statements about equality of the sexes, because the way is being paved to increase the retirement age of women and abolish the right to early retirement, maternity protection etc. We support a social security system which satisfies the needs of the people, with national insurance and a free national health service for everyone, lower retirement ages of 60 for men and 55 for women and 50-55 in professions with serious health risks, shorter insurance periods and full, stable employment.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, I will not repeat what my fellow Member, Mr Lavarra has already said – because I fully agree with his report on olive oil – but I wanted to say a few things about the question of tobacco. I also wanted to point out to the Commissioner that not only is there a problem concerning the depressed areas of the Mediterranean, a problem regarding monoculture where it is difficult to recover and convert the land, but also and above all a problem of social cohesion, in addition to the problem of ancillary activities and consequently the loss of thousands of jobs which endangers precisely the social stability of this reality. Therefore, while the issue of agriculture – in particular the CAP issue – also must be considered from a political viewpoint – just as we want Europe to do with respect to all the decisive issues for its development – it must be said that we have to make an effort, Commissioner, more of an effort to salvage something with regard to Mediterranean crops, since too much is done in favour of mainland agriculture, for France and Germany. It is a problem. No one says it, perhaps no one is brave enough, but someone has to say it and so I am defending Mediterranean crops; the health-conscious approach which is being propounded here is totally hypocritical: if we no longer use Kentucky tobacco, which is a healthy leaf, we will go and get our tobacco from Turkey, where the leaves are not healthy because they are contaminated by pesticides. As a consequence, citizens’ health will be put at risk and the States will not ban smoking, as they will continue to receive excise duties.

Political group: ELDR
I voted in favour of this own-initiative report. The European Union must now face its responsibilities in this matter. I voted in favour of a reform of the common agricultural policy that takes into account the objective of food safety. It must be clearly understood that this does not involve placing farmers and environmentalists at loggerheads. The farmers want to provide produce that is of the best possible quality. Environmentalists want to have renewed confidence in produce that does not pose a threat to their health. Those who are questioning this principle bear a heavy responsibility for the future. We must automatically apply the precautionary principle. The zero tolerance principle must always prevail in any matter regarding the protection of public health. The report considers that the existing stocks of animal meal and foodstuffs containing such meal must be destroyed and insists upon a ban on feeding animal meal to ruminants. Furthermore, when a case of BSE is confirmed, removing all livestock herds from the food chain always seems to be the solution that will provide the greatest guarantees for the safety of our fellow citizens. Alternative methods to destroying all livestock herds can only be implemented once they have been proven to be effective and only if they offer the same level of safety. We must proceed with maximum caution due to scientific uncertainties about the methods of contamination. That is why I believe it is necessary to improve and develop research into TSEs and other as yet unknown diseases and infective agents. I also think that it is essential to monitor the sanctions and measures imposed on Member States that do not observe this legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, rarely does a report arrive at such an opportune time as has General Morillon's on the new European security and defence architecture, listing priorities and deficiencies, of which the latter are unfortunately more numerous. For a start, this report comes just in time for the debate on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has been left to the end of the Convention, and, secondly, it does so at a time when Europe faces the ever more urgent question of what should be the future direction of a security and defence architecture: within NATO or outside it, in partnership with the USA in an intact transatlantic alliance, or decoupled from it as a burgeoning European competitive enterprise? The idea of the European Union's foreign and security policy being a means of conflict prevention and of enhancing international security is in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter, and making such a common foreign policy the precondition for the development of a European defence policy – the need for which is self-evident – is a cause of controversy in this House, even though it has been apparent since as recently as the Kosovo conflict that the European Union must have the capacity to perform tasks establishing and maintaining peace, as it is already doing in Macedonia. Our attempts to do this are marred by duplication, exemplified by NATO's establishment of its own rapid intervention force, which thus constitutes a competitor to the European rapid reaction force. I therefore think it significant that a supplementary amendment on behalf of the Group of the calls for a permanent intervention force, which must be, by 2009, capable of being deployed in any conflict similar to Kosovo in the European geographical area, whether in cooperation with NATO or independently of it. We are thus showing our open mind in attempting for once to find a way around the dispute within the EU over what direction this should take. Ever since the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Austria has made clear its desire to be involve itself in European security policy in a spirit of solidarity. We welcome every move towards something practically feasible, and that is another reason why we support General Morillon's concept.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, foot and mouth disease is a highly infectious disease for our livestock, but completely harmless to humans. I come from the Netherlands where our cattle were prophylactically vaccinated for over 60 years. The United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland do not have this tradition. After their entry into the European Union they lobbied for 20 years for the abolition of prophylactic vaccination in Europe. Unfortunately they were successful. Export interests were placed above all else. In both Great Britain and the Netherlands, we have seen the dreadful consequences for animals, farmers, part-time farmers, the tourist sector, in short the whole of society. The proposal of the temporary committee is to make emergency vaccination easier. That is a good idea. There is also a proposal to force supermarkets to sell vaccinated meat in future. The latter smacks of a planned economy and will not work. The Netherlands produces far more meat than the Dutch themselves can consume. What is necessary is a return to prophylactic vaccination. At least for those countries, like the Netherlands, that wish to do so. New techniques, such as marker vaccines make it possible to distinguish between a sick animal and one that has been vaccinated. That means that even the sacred exports can be maintained. It is a mystery to me why the majority in Parliament does not opt for this approach. For me this report is only half a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, half steps in the right direction are better than no steps at all, and I shall vote in favour of the report. But I am bound to say that I find it a great pity that our agricultural colleagues in particular have made the interests of direct exports paramount.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I shall start with the Kauppi report – and I join in the congratulations to Mrs Kauppi on the birth of her son this week. As has been noted, the title of this proposed directive, which will overhaul the existing mutual assistance directive, is slightly misleading, given that it will only, in effect, apply to direct taxation and insurance, indirect taxation in the form of VAT and excise duties being dealt with in separate instruments. That should be clarified. The thrust of this proposal is to prevent tax evaders from hiding in other Member States by establishing, on a voluntary basis, provisions for cooperation and mutual agreement in conducting tax controls. This will be a welcome advance. The change of legal basis from one relying on QMV – Article 95 – to one providing for unanimous voting by the Council – Articles 93 and 94 of the Treaty – is very much in line with precedent and, fortunately, with my own government's position on tax legislation. It is not possible to separate the administrative element of taxation powers, including mutual assistance provisions, from the tax raising prerogative and this should remain subject to unanimous voting. I turn to the report by Mr Purvis. I congratulate him on a very balanced and informative report, notwithstanding the slightly odd decision to link these two topics – hedge funds and derivatives – in a single report, as trade in derivatives is already far more regulated in the EU than the area of hedge funds. As mentioned in his report, Ireland has been extremely active and successful in broadening access to hedge funds. However, a clear regulatory framework must be put in place to secure minimum protection for investors while expanding Europe's paltry 15% share of total global hedge fund assets. SAIVs – sophisticated alternative investment vehicles, or hedge funds, as they are generally known – and derivatives have benefited over the last few years from the stock market downturn, as they did from the widening of the field of investors that the stock market experienced during the booming 1990s, when areas of investment that had previously been largely confined to experienced and qualified financial experts or fund managers were democratised as individuals and smaller groups new to the market put their money into shares at that time. I agree that we need an appropriate EU-wide regulatory regime for hedge funds which will prompt them to locate in the EU, rather than offshore, and provide the benefits of a common European passport through mutual recognition. However, we need to take a suitable light-touch approach to regulation in order to provide incentives that will encourage investment in funds based in the EU rather than continue to drive them offshore. Coordination of national regulators will provide for more flexibility within the single market, which is welcome. With regard to derivatives, I support the timely call for the Commission to present a report on their role on the capital markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the many Members who have helped to enhance this resolution with over 50 amendments. I would also like to make three brief suggestions to the Commission, for – like many other Members – I am convinced that cohesion is not a financial obligation but, first and foremost, a resource, and that if we do not have a Europe of equal opportunities we will never have Europe. That said, I will turn to the first two suggestions, which, moreover, have already been put forward this evening. I feel that it would be appropriate to reflect on the parameters, for the gross domestic product may well be in danger of becoming inadequate as an indicator of the real state of well-being or distress of our countries. We therefore need to assess other factors as well such as the rate of unemployment, the quality of infrastructure and the cost of labour. My second suggestion is this: since I feel that politics should always prevail over arithmetic, I would call upon Parliament and the Commission not to concentrate on the effects of enlargement as portrayed by statistics, although I do believe deeply in enlargement. Indeed, we will strive to ensure that no government can see it as a handicap, for it will certainly be a great political asset for Europe. That said, we would like to avoid certain regions unexpectedly finding themselves in a state of wealth for purely statistical reasons. Politics must continue to take precedence over arithmetic in this sense. Here is my third suggestion: we should reinvigorate the strategic profile of our cohesion policy, learning to invest in non-material resources such as training, knowledge and information. We feel that this is the road to take if integration is to have any practical meaning.

Political group: PSE