GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the transit of goods and people through Switzerland has been a major problem for many years. Following intensive work by the Commission, especially by rapporteur Mr Aparicio Sánchez whose efforts we have cause to be grateful for, we now have the opportunity of obtaining an agreement for heavy goods vehicles, which is extraordinary progress. In the future, it will be a question of achieving more such agreements between the EU and Switzerland, and in connection with other types of vehicle too. However, the agreements on which we can now adopt a position on behalf of the EU concern transit through Switzerland for lorries of 40 metric tons. It could presumably be argued that the fee payable for this kind of vehicle is high. Before the year 2000, it amounts to CHE 180. Clearly, this is expensive, but the cost of instead driving around Switzerland would presumably be a great deal higher. This would also be a considerably worse alternative from an environmental point of view. As I see it, there is only one significant weakness in the agreement, namely the allocation of the quotas which have been negotiated and which increase in the course of the years leading up to the agreement’s coming into force. The proposal, which others too have considered, involves a basic quota which is the same for all countries. The only problem is that certain countries have no need of such a large quota while others need access to a significantly larger one. You have only to look at a map of Europe to realise that the flow of traffic from north to south signifies a great deal more for some countries than for others. For countries such as Sweden and Finland, another system of allocation would be extremely significant. Mr Ferber has tabled an amendment which involves our looking in a considerably more flexible way at the present allocation, and I support this amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all let me thank Mrs Read for this report and point out at once that I will simply concentrate on the social aspects which, in our view, deserve a closer look. With the Lisbon Summit coming up in a few days, I think the European Parliament needs to send out a clear signal to the Member State governments that Europe’s entry into the digital age, and therefore into a new economic area with very considerable potential, must not be at the price of social cohesion. The need for solid social foundations and for consideration of the people’s real needs are, in my view, the sine qua non of the success of the information society, as we understand it in Europe, i.e. a society that cannot be built only on market forces. We must take the utmost care to ensure that all sectors of society benefit from the information society and that we do not create a society in which social inclusion or exclusion depend on access to the new technologies and the use of their potential. I think three points need to be noted, as well as the risks and concerns to which they give rise. The first relates to the users and the risk of a gap emerging between the various victims of social exclusion. The cost of Internet access, the sidelining of entire sectors of society (the young unemployed, housewives, the elderly) and the shortcomings in education and vocational training are serious obstacles to an information society meant to benefit everyone. The second relates to the individuals working in this sector; given the flexibility that is a feature of the sector, organisational structures must be set up for the employees, together with guarantees of their rights, in relation to social security, pensions or the necessary job-security provisions. My third and last point relates to the question of public service and improving the democratic systems to develop procedures... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I also wish to congratulate Mr Miranda, who is presenting a report that has the significant aim of strengthening consensus between the EU and the UN and agreeing an approach that will produce the best return on the resources used. This should basically be easy, as the UN and the EU are natural allies. They have the same objectives and priorities, as was seen in connection with the Millennium Declaration in the autumn of 2000. The report quite rightly reminds us that progress in partnership and above all in the attainment of goals is only achieved to any significant degree on the basis of careful analysis. It is not enough, however, to assess the results achieved so far in the partnership, which are obviously extremely important also. We should also analyse the irreplaceable values of democracy and people’s opinions, which are essential for development. In fact, we are remarkably unaware of those values, which have also served as the basis of the EU’s own development from a Europe that in many ways had been knocked about by wars to the world’s leading political and commercial player. The EU at present is a very important negotiator at the political table. There is, however, one area where the UN is a quite indispensable partner: it has solid grassroots respect around the world and the EU does not command that same level of respect even in some Member States. If I may use commercial language, the UN is actually a brand. As an important provider of finance, the EU must be especially interested in the value of this UN brand. The respect and trust the UN has at grassroots level is a resource that cannot be measured in terms of money or replaced. The EU and its Member States are making significant use of resources in matters of development. Although the sums are huge, they are nevertheless meagre compared to the problems. For that reason, any sort of rationalisation is also welcome. One such way of making the use of resources more efficient would obviously be common representation in the UN and its special organisations. From 2004, when the number of EU members will be much greater than now, this will be more essential than ever. Moreover, as regards our aid donation – 0.7% of GDP – that must continue to be considered a humane target to achieve. Nothing else will do.

Political group: PPE-DE
The objective of the Commission recommendation is to harmonise creditors’ rights in the event of the winding up of credit institutions Union-wide. Yet nowhere is there any specific mention of the rights which the employees of the credit institutions in question ought to have. A number of national legislative systems do acknowledge the employees as creditors, but they are only, at best, entitled to the payment of their wages due. They receive no compensation, on the other hand, for the loss of their job, i.e. the loss of their future wages, even though there are attempts to guarantee that creditors will receive compensation for the sums they are owed, in other words their capital, the source of their future income. Employees bear no responsibility in the difficulties of banks or credit institutions since they have had no part in taking decisions. They are the ones that should be compensated first and foremost for the loss of their jobs. We voted against this recommendation which is concerned only with capitalist creditors, and not with the employees who do the work of running these credit institutions. - Sanders-ten Holte recommendation for second reading (A5-0375/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
FR Mr President, this text expresses many good intentions against violence towards women. Yes, it is revolting that in the twenty-first century, women can be stoned, mutilated, sacrificed by fire, or victims of forced marriages, sexual slavery, trafficking in human beings or so-called honour crimes. However good intentions are all the report contains, and the annexes on the cases of half a dozen countries where these types of practices take place speak for themselves. Despite the fact that respect for women’s rights has been included in various political and trade agreements, not only has nothing happened in the countries concerned, but the European Union has not suspended the agreements binding it to those countries. Trade rights prevail over women’s rights. In reality, these barbaric practices are being continued with the collusion, at least from a passive point of view, of supposedly civilised countries. Moreover, if the European Union wants to claim to be a champion of women’s rights and be credible, it first needs to show that it is capable of making all of its Member States recognise the fundamental right of women to control their own bodies, including the right to abortion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We are dealing again with an own-initiative report by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which, although supplementary health insurance is a highly topical issue, is not totally endorsed by the committee or here in the plenary of the European Parliament since, after all, 12 members did not vote for it in committee. It is all very well to call on the Commission to present a Green Paper indicating ways in which the existing health insurance systems could be effectively supplemented and maintained by means of supplementary care schemes while providing high-quality medical care, and it is important that we should welcome the development of a single market for supplementary health insurance. But let me specially emphasise the accuracy of the statement that all other health protection should be a matter for Member States rather than the European Union and that publicly funded healthcare systems should remain, as ever, within the exclusive competence of the Member States. Because that is so, I think it is premature to incorporate in this resolution a long and very detailed list of points to be included in a proposal for a Commission directive. I find it rather odd that people are already trying to tie the Commission's hands in relation to the proposal for a directive, while at the same calling on it to present a Green Paper on the current situation with regard to optional and supplementary health insurance schemes. Are we not putting the cart before the horse? Notwithstanding these observations and reservations, I voted for the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
I profoundly regret the fact that Parliament has not called for a report devoted exclusively to the first assessment of the introduction of euro notes and coins. I proposed such a report, incidentally, in my motion for a resolution (B5-640/2002) on the effects of the introduction of the euro, which is annexed to today’s report. While this report emphasises the success of the entire operation and insists on wider powers for the Eurozone, it also expresses disappointment with the inflationary pressures of the changeover to the euro, particularly in the services sector, and calls for an investigation into financial irregularities, just as I did in my resolution. The Commission and the ECB recognise that the impact was greater than the 0.2% predicted but considerably smaller than the effects experienced by consumer organisations and than the information on inflation reported by some national central banks suggested. Nevertheless, the report discusses developments in bank charges and commissions in the euro zone. A full assessment is needed to investigate the introduction of excessive increases, especially for domestic payments, and illegal charges on crossborder payments. Such charges penalise consumers and increase the cost of transactions. Banks cannot expect consumers and SMEs to meet the cost of lost foreign exchange revenues. I therefore welcome the fact that my amendment has been adopted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we are holding a real parliamentary debate because the positions were initially differing. I must congratulate Mr Ferber and Mr Simpson on the excellent work they have carried out and which we are able to consider this morning. From the Spanish experience, which has been mentioned a few times, I believe that Parliament’s amendments improve on the Commission’s proposal because it introduces moderation – strict moderation – into the pace of opening up and liberalisation. We all agree on the need for this opening up and liberalisation, but the pace is important. One message went completely unnoticed at the Nice European Council, and I think it is also close to Parliament’s position, which is that services of general interest must be taken clearly into account and be clearly favoured. Madam President, the service we are considering faces fierce competition from the new information and communication technologies. That competition cannot be considered in current terms, because the use of those technologies is undergoing a dramatic increase and we therefore have to view the issue with a little perspective. This sector is already suffering from enormous competition from those new technologies. We have included the special services in the directive itself, and I believe that Parliament has given them the added value that they must have because, otherwise, the Commission’s proposal could become a back door through which the services of general interest could be attacked. Madam President, in dealing with this issue we are talking about economic and social cohesion. It is very important to understand that it is not only the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds that have the task of defending economic and social cohesion; it is all the Union’s policies, as laid down in Article 158 of the EC Treaty.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Skinner report provides a sensible response to the October 2000 Commission communication to implement the risk capital action plan which dates back to the 1998 Cardiff Summit and dovetails neatly with the financial services action plan which Barcelona has made a priority. SMEs in Europe face much greater difficulties than their US counterparts in raising loan or equity finance, which may help in part to explain the extraordinary success in US economic growth over the last ten years. Although there is now rapid growth in venture capital funds in the European Union, there is enormous variation in performance. The City of London, which I proudly represent, leads the way at 0.4% of UK GDP devoted to this cause. But even here, most funding comes from US sources. Pension funds are the prime source of capital, and I have advocated UK-style self-select pension plans for the self-employed being permitted to make such investments on a pan-European basis, although this was rejected in committee, unfortunately. I agree with the call for US-style EU-wide insolvency laws along the lines of the American Chapter XI bankruptcy procedures which afford a number of advantages, particularly in so far as they do not disrupt the continuity of trading in failing companies. I also lament the lateness in bringing forward the much-needed Community patent, due to excessive sensitivity on the language issue which will only add to the cost for SMEs and make the procedures unworkable. Not radically tackling the language issue now will only get worse after enlargement when there are 40 million Polish speakers who also want their language to be given the same priority as, say, Italian or Spanish. Member States should also seriously consider promotion of funds through generous capital gains tax incentives to mitigate the risk to investors. I generally, though, reject State funding directly for SMEs as the State is generally poor at picking winners amongst competing demands for capital. Nevertheless Mr Skinner's suggestion of a one-stop shop risk capital website to facilitate the interface of SMEs and the finance-providers is a very good one. This excellent report enjoyed considerable cross-party support in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and, in spite of originating from the other side of the House, deserves our full support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there has thankfully been a change in European Community law over the last 30 years from freedom of movement of persons being seen as purely an economic issue – functional mobility – to it being seen as a personal right. This has meant a lot of rhetoric about a citizen's Europe but not much change in the mentality or administrations of the Member States, as Mrs Wallis has pointed out. In saying that, I am not overlooking the economic benefits of free movement. Mrs Boumediene-Thiery's report points out – and I congratulate her for its quality – that facilitating mobility promotes dynamism and economic competitiveness. So why does the Right ignore this? But the real bottom line for Liberals is whether the Member States believe in and respect the notion of European citizenship, not only allowing the citizens of a Member State and their families to move around but also conferring such rights, to the greatest extent possible, on legally resident third-country nationals and their families – which unfortunately were not covered by the Commission report. It is very aggravating when the Council of Ministers and individual governments wring their hands about the low turnout in European elections, launch campaigns with balloons and plastic bags about people's Europe and seek to win citizens' votes in referendum campaigns, but still maintain obstructive red tape when those citizens have the cheek to assert their European legal right to move freely. Those rules are far too complicated anyway. We need a complete overhaul to streamline and make crystal clear the unimpeded exercise of free movement. It is not too much to ask. As Mrs Wallis said, it should be as easy for people to cross borders as it is for widgets or potatoes.

Political group: ELDR
At present, drugs policy is not harmonised within the EU. Instead, each country devises its own policy. That does not, however, prevent the drugs issue from appearing high on the political agenda. Ever younger people are misusing drugs, and more and more young people see no danger in trying cannabis. Even what are termed party drugs, that is to say the most dangerous synthetic drugs of all, are becoming more widespread. In a Europe without borders, we are in danger of having ever greater drugs problems as the legalisation of drugs extends beyond the Netherlands. Many appear already to have given up the fight for a drugs-free Europe. It deserves to be repeated that there is a link between the number of people who try drugs and the number of people who are in danger of getting hooked on their misuse. The possession and use of drugs must therefore remain criminal offences. The wrong signals are still being sent out to the young people of Europe when anyone can buy five grams of cannabis at a so-called coffee shop. We must not be satisfied with this Framework Decision, but must continue to strive for a drugs-free Europe. We say no. We do not wish to legalise, we do not wish to liberalise and we have not given up the dream of zero tolerance for drugs.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to bow my head and turn my thoughts to the civil and military victims on all sides, and say that I deeply regret all the suffering caused in the opening days of the war. Let us hope that it will come to a speedy end. Generally speaking, this conflict brings three thoughts to my mind. Firstly, how can we learn from our differences, so that the European Union can find itself again at last, and can speak with a united voice in international affairs? The European Union was built up over time and through various trials. More often than not, great advances have followed serious crises. The trial that Europe is currently passing through is not the first and it will certainly not be the last. and we must therefore be optimistic. The most important thing is to examine and to understand, after the war, the reasons for our present differences. Are they fundamental reasons? Are our positions irreversible and irreconcilable? If they are, that will cause serious difficulties in the future. Is it not more likely that they are merely the result of a lack of consultation and coordination? It seems to me that it is now a matter of urgency that Europe, without harming its transatlantic partnership, should provide itself with the means of being independent and powerful, and should provide itself with a real common foreign and defence policy. Independence does not mean breaking alliances. My second thought is about the future of Iraq. This time, the United Nations must fully play its part in the reconstruction of Iraq, so that the country can provide itself with a representative government which is willing to live in peace with its neighbours and is capable of playing an active part within the international community. Reconstruction must be carried out, first and foremost, for the benefit of the Iraqi people who have suffered so much for so many years. The Iraqis must at last be able to benefit from their country’s wealth, which is enormous. Thirdly, I wonder whether we have the capacity to give an appropriate welcome to the candidate countries next year. Are we ready? That is what we should be asking ourselves. In order to welcome the candidate countries in the best possible circumstances, it seems that three conditions will need to be met. Firstly, we need to be reconciled on the subject of our values. Why should those not be the values of the old Europe? Secondly, our institutions, which find it difficult enough to operate when there are only fifteen Member States, need to be changed, and that means that the Convention must complete its work in the best possible conditions. Thirdly, we have to be able to cope financially. I have set out the problem, but it is not my job to provide the solution to it. My most cherished hope is that, after this war and after we have passed through this crisis, the Union, whether it has fifteen or twenty-five Member States, will be independent and finally able to speak with a single voice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, some people are attempting to get the nuclear debate put back on the agenda. I believe that European environment ministers have so far adopted the very wise approach of excluding it from the list of flexible mechanisms. Nuclear power is more expensive than other options, such as energy efficiency, for example, and every dollar that is invested in nuclear power is denied to other investments that are much more profitable. Nuclear power does not really meet the needs of people, who also want to live in heated or air-conditioned homes, depending on the climatic zones in which they live. Nuclear power does not provide a single solution. But solutions can be found in cogeneration, based on biomass or gas. Nuclear power is still dangerous. The accident at Tokaimura clearly showed this. And fifty years after the start of civil nuclear power, there are still no solutions as to what do with nuclear waste. We have already invested billions in research and we still have not made any progress. I fervently believe that we must appreciate the importance of energy efficiency. We can help the Chinese, the Indians, Indonesia and the Pakistanis much more by giving them the means to buy refrigerators that do not consume much energy, because there will be 800 million refrigerators over the next ten years. That is what will dictate the CO2 emissions of developing countries, rather than the two, three, four or five nuclear reactors that could be sold to them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Given the mortal danger posed to the world by the greenhouse effect, proposals that seek to improve measures taken to reduce the scale of the threat cannot be neglected. I am nevertheless one of those who think that we cannot speculate on pollution and allow the rich to buy a right to pollute from those who cannot afford to develop. That is why I voted against, and I call urgently for the speeding up of research programmes for the production of non-polluting energy. Fusion is part of it, which is why construction of ITER should begin as a matter of urgency.

Political group: GUE-NGL