GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution which we are discussing this evening raises two issues. Firstly, the problem of Community legislation. If we examine the Community's legal sources, we have the original Treaty law, on the one hand, and directives and regulations, which are adopted with the involvement of Council and Parliament, on the other. But between the two, there is something else, which is often regarded as a source of law, namely the communications. We are discussing one of these communications today. Commissioner, you have rightly pointed out that this communication is merely an interpretation and is based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. But it often seems as if the Commission is the only body to interpret the law, without any involvement by the Council or the European Parliament. The Commission acts as the sole legislator, as in the Byzantium of ancient times under Emperor Constantine. My law lecturer in Freiburg sometimes described the Commission's methods as the Imperial Byzantine approach to law-making as well. This is why I think it is absolutely crucial, in these very important cases, that directives or regulations are submitted and – as is right and proper – adopted with the participation of Parliament and the Council. The problem which we are addressing raises a second issue, namely competition in the European Community. Liberalisation – i.e. the abolition of monopolies – is one of the EU's success stories. In telecommunications in particular, we have seen that cutting costs and prices has genuinely benefited citizens. But there is a substantial danger here. We face a situation in which some are liberalising and opening up to competition, but others are not doing so. And we see that those who have not done sometimes win out, even with a monopoly, as long as the others are buying up, until the old public monopoly has been replaced by a private monopoly. The citizen then still faces a monopoly, as before, and derives no benefit from liberalisation. I think that the Commission needs to pay greater attention to this fact in its activities in future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President of the European Parliament ... no, EB of the EB, Mr President of the European Parliament ... no, EB, EB. What is all this about? You can either present and justify all of this as being in the interests of the State, just as Elmar Brok, whom I personally hold in high esteem both here and in other professional contexts, has done, or you can comment a little on the procedure and how this agreement has come about and consider why someone behind me always says, 'EB, EB' when I say, 'EP'. We certainly need to be a little wary here. I welcome the fact that this agreement will give Parliament a bit more power and that there is also going to be the opportunity to examine certain documents. I do not wish to run the risk of the little man behind me, who always says 'EB, EB', being proved right by people confusing the European Parliament, 'EP', with EB, 'Elmar Brok'. Why am I saying this, and why, strange as it may seem, are they seen as one and the same thing? Because I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the way in which this has been negotiated is not exactly exemplary, and that the fact is that, in the final analysis, we are faced with a take it or leave it situation. Many Members hardly had the chance to be involved in the negotiating process and above all it is now once again EB who has access to internal documents and, as he himself also said, he is pleased that only Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy are involved while the EP, the European Parliament, is left out in the cold. We can, indeed we must, live with these objections, because obviously this can be seen as a foot in the door, but as I see it – and I am not the only one – the report does contain some reassurance. It says in the explanatory statement: 'It is ... crucial that the Agreement includes a provision that it will be reviewed after two years at the request of either of the two institutions in the light of the experience acquired in implementing it.' I very much hope that those who are involved now, that is the two EBs and their friends, will not act in such a way that the agreement is unilaterally terminated by the Council or whoever it may be, so that the EP then has an opportunity to have more of a say when the text is redrafted and actually to become what someone previously called a fully-fledged parliament. Each of the individual committees should be able to have their say and fair account should be taken of the very diverse views represented in this House, so that this clash is avoided, and also so that we prove that what was mentioned earlier is true; that we are in agreement here that there can be no democracy without transparency, and that includes within this House.

Political group: PSE
For many years, drivers formed part of a profession that could be practised with little training. If drivers had enjoyed extensive education, this was not deemed relevant to this job. This made their profession appealing to many who found it difficult to stay in education and who were pleased to be able to earn their own income at a young age and in a relatively independent capacity. For this reason, many people who have the required driver’s licence for lorries and buses may not be happy if stricter requirements are about to be prescribed for their profession. They are exempt from basic training, which prevents them from becoming unemployed and are only obliged to undergo further training every five years. The number of hours of training now to be prescribed – a minimum 210 hours and a maximum of 630 hours – is lower than is already required in some Member States. These Member States now need to accept that drivers from abroad who are less well trained will now start to work in their countries. Consequently, the contribution to road traffic safety, economical use of fuel, good relations with the public, command of languages and better working conditions will therefore be very limited. I therefore regard this proposal as a first step which, in time, will need to be followed by others. - Rod report (A5-0412/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the , I should like to say that we agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit that this topic is of key importance. However, our group does see the need for a thorough and somewhat more systematically-prepared debate to be held during the second November part-session, when we will be discussing relations between Europe and Russia. There is obviously, though, no objection at all to the dreadful events in Moscow being specifically mentioned in items 22 and 23 of the resolution on the results of the European Council and to the topic also being raised during the debate with Mr Solana. However, we consider it necessary for this topic to be discussed in a more structured way during the second November part-session, but as I said before, we have no objections at all to this point also being discussed in the debate on the results of the European Council and in this afternoon's debate with Mr Solana.

Political group: PSE
The President-in-Office has not replied to the question which I submitted and I should like to repeat it, although I would say that, following the police raid on offices of organisations in Liège and from the position taken by the Belgian Minister of the Interior in the European Parliament Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, it would appear that the Belgian Presidency does not have virtuous intentions towards the demonstrations planned in Laeken. My question is: can the President-in-Office assure us that there will be no police violence and suppression such as we saw in Gothenburg and Genoa?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we have heard various speakers on behalf of the committees, and I would like to know why we have not heard from all of them; for example, there is no speaker listed for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would have thought it would be normal procedure for a speaker from each committee to be given the opportunity to put forward his committee’s opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Swedish members of the Group of the who have signed this explanation of vote chose to vote against the entire resolution on the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. We are in favour of a radical reform of agricultural policy and support the Commission’s proposals for reform. We believe, however, that the ways in which Parliament’s resolution is worded give off mixed and sometimes conflicting signals. The reason for adopting our position is that we do not want to make it more difficult for the developing countries to enter our market with their agricultural products. Paragraphs 6, 32 and 34 talk about ‘protection’ against unfair ‘external competition’ and ‘a special form of external protection’, which are things we cannot support. Moreover, we do not wish under any circumstances to appropriate more money to the common agricultural policy. Paragraph 21 demands that full use be made of the maximum amount of 1.27% of GDP. In round figures, that would mean a further EUR 25 000 million appropriated to this budget.

Political group: PSE
The report which we have voted on today at first reading is concerned with a legislative proposal to amend Directive 91/671/EEC. This directive, it has to be admitted, made a contribution to road safety in the European Union, inasmuch as it made it compulsory to wear safety belts and to use child restraint systems. Such provisions are essential as they make it possible to reduce the severity of injuries in the case of an accident. Research into accidents has shown that, for children who are not restrained by an appropriate system, the risk of being seriously injured is seven times higher than for those who are restrained. However, it would seem essential to revise this ten-year-old text. Under current legislation, for example, children less than three years of age can use an ordinary rear-seat belt. As the father of young children, I am in a good position to condemn this state of affairs, which places their health and their lives at risk. The restraint systems currently available on the market are sufficiently well designed to enable their use to be made compulsory. The use of child restraint systems must therefore be further harmonised and made more certain. The Commission’s proposal also extends the scope of the directive by including in it the wearing of a safety belt, by the driver and seated passengers, in all motor vehicles which are suitably equipped. This proposal, though satisfactory, is not sufficiently precise. That is why the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism wanted to provide additional details. These include the launching of an information campaign about the danger posed by an air bag to a child transported in a rear-facing safety seat fitted to the front passenger seat of a vehicle. With regard to safety conditions for children less than 12 years old, I believe, like the rapporteur, that it is more logical to take their height into account rather than their weight, because they do not need special restraints if they are at least 150 cm tall. Ensuring the safety of our children is a collective responsibility. I therefore voted for all the amendments which work towards that end.

Political group: PSE
I fully support moves to increase worker protection against the health risks of exposure to asbestos. Since the numbers of people affected by asbestos are predicted to rise considerably by 2020, legislation must be upgraded to further reduce acceptable levels of exposure. In order for the EU to show itself to be serious about non-implementation of this legislation, the use of sanctions against irresponsible employers is vital. I also welcome the move to provide EU funding for training and information about the health risks associated with asbestos. Essentially, this report should lead to a more sensible preventative – rather than curative – approach to asbestos poisoning and it could potentially result in much lower figures of workers affected. - Report Ayuso González (A5-0073/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I also welcome onto the platform some representatives of the dock workers who have got in. Today I feel a bit like I am in the Middle Ages, in a fortified castle. What can I add in a minute? So much has been said already, but this afternoon I had another meeting with some of the people from the dock workers’ unions, and I was impressed by their message. This directive brings ports of convenience closer. This directive organises social competition between the European ports which will result in social dumping and also, in time, the destruction of the dock workers’ charter as we know it in Belgium. Nobody is asking for this. Europe is apparently the crowbar used to tackle problems in some countries. Allowing self-handling without a prior compulsory licence has other negative consequences, as has already been mentioned here: a lack of safety and problems with environmental disasters at sea. That is all we need. My group and I are therefore voting against self-handling and in favour of the social protection of dock workers, and I hope that some socially aware fellow members of the Group of the European People’s Party will follow suit.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Community system of support for the disposal of some fishery products in certain outermost regions, including the Autonomous Region of Madeira, a system established in 1992 following on from the POSEI programmes, has been subject to successive extensions and revisions. The need to adopt specific measures for the outermost regions with Article 299(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community as a legal base has been constantly reiterated by Parliament. There can, therefore, be no doubt that it is appropriate to maintain instruments of support for the outermost regions, as laid down in the proposal for a Council regulation presented by the Commission. I therefore offer my unreserved support to this proposal for a regulation, which seeks to extend the system in force by one year, until 31 December 2002, thereby ensuring the continuity of the legal framework of the system to compensate for the additional costs incurred as a result of remoteness in the marketing of certain fishery products. A one-year extension will enable the Commission to come up with a new support system to enter into force after 1 January 2003, in light of the assessment currently being made of the impact of these support measures on the fisheries sector in the outermost regions. - Maat report (A5-0040/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, off the subject of aeroplane delays, I wish to apologise for the absence yesterday of my colleague in the Group of the , Caroline Lucas, who is a British Member. She could not be here because she was arrested yesterday morning during an anti-nuclear demonstration in Glasgow. Although her identity was noted and her position as a Member of the European Parliament was very apparent, she was still held in custody all day. I regard this as absolutely unacceptable and would ask you to contact the British authorities in order to ensure that this does not happen again and that Mrs Lucas receives an apology. I have written to you in this respect together with my colleague, Mrs Hautala.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Mennea, for this extremely valuable report. Sport fulfils a major social role in our society; that much is clear. Professional sport fulfils this role too and has great social significance. I have tabled an amendment to Mr Mennea’s report, naturally with his consent, proposing a possible alternative to the transfer system. I happen to believe that the performance on the pitch which we are discussing, in other words the job performance, is no longer proportionate to current remuneration levels. For this reason, I believe it is merely a commercial activity which should be distributed evenly. I would like to know whether you have a response to this. Secondly, on behalf of a large number of fellow MEPs, I have requested the final decision with regard to reforming the transfer system to be postponed. You commented on it yourself a moment ago. The reason being that UEFA, together with a large number of national football federations, is organising a meeting during the next part-session in October and I would ask you to attend, together with Mr Monti.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is high time we woke up and noticed the kind of environmental and safety risks associated with maritime transport and particularly with tankers. Oil catastrophes have concretely shown that relying on good luck costs society dear. Unfortunately difficult decisions often make progress only when a catastrophe and the reactions of voters force politicians to act. The Erika II package under discussion therefore deserves all possible support. I would like to congratulate all three rapporteurs for drawing up thorough reports. The Erika II package certains very many positive proposals among which I would particularly like to mention the setting up of emergency ports and the automatic monitoring of vessels. The setting up of a maritime safety agency will also improve coordination on safety issues. Although we Europeans can affect the condition of our maritime environment very significantly, we must always remember that we are not alone in the world, even after enlargement. A large number of vessels originating from other than EU Member States travel near the shores of Europe. Therefore, we must take care that the well-intentioned measures of Europe do not impede the creation of international agreements. One example is the European oil pollution compensation fund (COPE). Setting up the fund must not mean reducing willingness to achieve a wider solution under the auspices of the IMO. Oil pollutes just as much and clean-up costs are identical whether the vessel is registered in the EU or, for example, under the Liberian flag. Ladies and gentlemen, safeguarding the cleanliness of our seas and especially our coastline means we must not hesitate a minute longer. It is time to act decisively so that the worst problems can be removed once and for all. In this way, we will ensure that no Jessica, Angelica or even Marika Package is required in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, a few days before the last European Union/United States summit, you expressed your satisfaction that there were, and I quote, ‘solid commercial relations between the Union and the United States that enable us to work together on the Doha programme.’ However, just before Cancun, it is vital that there is a European commitment that is not afraid of being different from the American positions in several areas. This is what I think is expected by those, such as the trade ministers of the LDCs very recently, who are criticising the WTO’s inability to respect the Doha timetable, to complete the negotiations on decisions in favour of development, on access to medicines, special and differential treatment or trade in agricultural products. So far, no progress has been made. I would like to reiterate my fear of this ‘dimension’ of development disappearing due to a policy that gives priority only to commercial trade and has been dogmatic in choosing to liberalise it. While the gulf between rich and poor countries is widening, it is difficult to accept this desire to include new subjects such as investment, competition or public markets. For its part, GATS threatens public services and State missions when there has not yet been any evaluation of what effect liberalisation may have. Under these circumstances, there should be a moratorium. The right to health, education, food safety, and energy should prevail above commercial interests. The European Union should, on the contrary, work towards the democratisation of the international trade system and cooperate closely with developing countries so that the development objectives prevail.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have voted against the report. The constitutions of four EU Member States protect the sanctity of life to the extent that they prohibit research on stem cells taken from embryos, or unborn children. The fact that the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council are not prepared to take account of this constitutional protection within the framework of the EU common research programme is extremely regrettable. I was one of the signatories to Amendment No 92, all four sections of which were defeated (193-284 with 22 abstentions; 183-293 with 21 abstentions; 182-303 with 21 abstentions; and 184-312 with 18 abstentions). This gives the go-ahead to use taxpayers’ money to fund an activity that is illegal and unconstitutional in four Member States, including Germany. There are therefore serious shortcomings in the ethical standards for the Sixth Framework Programme, especially with regard to research involving human embryos. The Member States have widely differing attitudes towards this type of research, and these must be respected. It should thus be self-evident that embryos created for in-vitro fertilisation but not used for that purpose, together with research using embryo stem cells, must not be funded by the EU. Community resources must benefit all countries. Member States must not be obliged, as is currently the case, to fund research that is illegal and unconstitutional in their own countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I shall adopt a technical approach, but please also allow me to make some more general comments. The Europe of the future must become a land of exchange, of meetings and mixing. What could be more important than knowing our neighbours, their culture and their language? In any case, that is what we say every morning. For fifty years, we have been building a multicultural Europe, not a one-sided Europe. Our Europe, that melting pot of cultures, languages and people, is possible thanks to free movement and study programmes. Furthermore, we would like to build a Europe based on knowledge and lifelong learning. However, a knowledge-based Europe can only exist through exchanges, in particular exchanges with third countries. As the Nobel Prize-winner Octavio Paz so rightly wrote, ‘every culture is born of mixing, meeting and confrontation; quite the opposite, it is isolation that destroys civilisations’. Thanks to Mrs Roure’s excellent report, we have the privilege of enabling young people from all over the world to come to this old Europe of ours in order to learn a language, study, or hone and share their knowledge. As Mrs Roure so clearly pointed out, knowledge-sharing is a source of enrichment both for immigrants and for countries of origin and host countries. By allowing easier, more homogenous access for students, researchers and volunteers, we are also allowing Europe and our fellow citizens to enrich and share their knowledge and experiences. We cannot, therefore, close our doors to all these people who wish to learn, share and understand. All the conditions must be met in order to allow third-country nationals to come to Europe to train or hone their knowledge, because knowledge is the only thing that increases when shared.

Political group: PSE