Datasets:
ArrcttacsrjksX
/
LLM

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
2.68k
That is why my Group moves that this item be taken off the agenda.
Thank you, Mr Poettering.
We shall now hear Mr Wurtz speaking against this request.
Madam President, I would firstly like to point out Mr Poettering' s lack of logic.
He has just been preaching to the Group of the Party of European Socialists because they went back on a decision taken in a perfectly clear manner at the Conference of Presidents, and now he is doing just the same.
We discussed that matter and we were unanimous, with the exception of the PPE and ELDR Groups. As my fellow chairmen will recall, I even mentioned that it was not a matter of knowing whether one was for or against the Tobin tax, but of whether one dared to hear what the Commission and the Council thought of it.
It is not a lot to ask.
I therefore repeat the proposal that this oral question to the Commission and the Council should be retained so that we can find out, once and for all, the positions of these two bodies regarding the proposal which is relatively modest but which would give a clear message to public opinion, particularly after the tide of feeling generated by the failure of the Seattle Conference.
We shall proceed to vote on the PPE-DE Group' s request that the oral question regarding the capital tax be withdrawn from the agenda.
(Parliament rejected the request, with 164 votes for, 166 votes against and 7 abstentions)
Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Poettering for advertising this debate.
Thank you very much.
Madam President, has my vote been counted? I was unable to vote electronically, since I do not have a card.
My vote was "in favour" .
Indeed, if we add the two Members who have declared themselves, then the result of the vote would be ....
Madam President, the Presidency has already declared the result of the vote.
There is no room for amendments.
Madam President, in the earlier vote - and I will abide by your ruling on this matter - on the question of the strategic plan of the Commission I indicated that I would like to speak in advance of the vote on behalf of my Group.
That did not happen.
I would appreciate it if, on the close of this item of business, I might be allowed to give an explanation of vote on behalf of my Group.
This is an important matter.
It would be useful for the record of the House to state how people perceive what we have just done in the light of their own political analysis.
Madam President, I do not wish to reopen the debate, but I had also asked for the floor, to comment on Mr Barón Crespo's motion.
You did not call me either.
I regret this, but the vote has already been taken and the decision is made so let us leave the matter there.
I am terribly sorry, Mr Hänsch and Mr Cox. I did not see you asking to speak.
Even so, I think the positions are quite clear and they shall be entered in the Minutes.
When we adopt the Minutes for today' s sitting tomorrow, then any Members who think the positions have not been explained clearly enough may ask for amendments.
This seems to me to be a workable solution.
Of course, the Minutes for tomorrow' s sitting will take into account any additional explanations.
I think this is a better solution than proceeding now to extremely time-consuming explanations of votes.
Mr Cox, Mr Hänsch, would this be acceptable to you?
Madam President, if the vote records correctly how my Group voted I shall not, and cannot, object to that.
If your ruling is that I cannot give an explanation of vote, I accept that but with reservations.
We shall pay particular attention to the wording of the Minutes, as we always do, of course.
If they do not properly reflect the positions adopted, then we may correct them, if necessary.
(The order of business was adopted thus amended)
Safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods
The next item is the report (A5-0105/1999) by Mr Koch, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the harmonisation of examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterways (C5-0208/1999 - 1998/0106(COD)).
Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I can be quite frank in saying that I welcome the Council's common position on harmonising the training of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway.
Firstly, we needed to take action on a formal level in order to meet the requirements of Directive 96/35/EC, which obliges the Member States to appoint safety advisers and to organise the training, instruction and examination of these people but does not explain this explicitly.
Secondly, by adopting this directive we achieve a) an increase in safety when dangerous goods are both transported and transhipped; b) a reduction in distortions of competition resulting from wide variations in national training structures and training costs and c) equal opportunities for safety advisers on the European labour market.
Thirdly, this directive, as it currently stands in the common position, guarantees - in particular because it confines itself exclusively to minimum standards - a high degree of flexibility and modest regulation by the European Union; by adopting it we contribute to the Member States' bearing a high level of individual responsibility.
All of this is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and is therefore to be greatly welcomed.
Our amendments from the first reading have, I believe, been taken into account very satisfactorily.
They have either been accepted or transposed with no change in the substance, or they have been rejected because the corresponding European arrangements have not been included, for example a system of penalties for violations of the rules or a complex classification structure for related groups of questions.
The one unanimously adopted amendment of the Committee on Regional Policy and Transport, which concerns the timetable for implementing the directive, is something which I would urge you to support.
By not setting a specific date for the Member States to implement the directive and instead giving them a period of three months after its entry into force, we are introducing a flexibility clause which ensures that the directive will be implemented without delay.
I would urge you to endorse this.
Madam President, we cannot and must not accept the fact that we hear ever more frequently of accidents causing major damage on our roads, but also on our railways and waterways, not solely but at least partly because those involved do not take the transport of dangerous goods seriously enough or because - as a result of ignorance or a lack of training on the part of the drivers or others responsible for the various vehicles - a minor accident has all too often become a major disaster.
As an Austrian, I still have a vivid memory, as, I believe, we all do, of the catastrophe which cost so many human lives last year in the Tauern Tunnel, where subsequent work to rebuild the parts of the tunnel which had been destroyed in this fire continued for many months at huge expense.
The renovation project, which lasted for months, cut off this important route between the north and south of Europe.
The traffic which had to be diverted because of this stretched the patience of many thousands of people in the EU to the limit.
In fact, all hell broke loose in some municipalities in my province.
Prevention has to be our answer to disasters of this kind and this draft directive is an important step towards well-trained safety advisers being available, so that the right action is taken in good time.
All the same, we must not content ourselves with enacting European law to ensure greater safety.
We also need to follow this up and make sure that our rules are transposed by the Member States in good time and - even more importantly - we need to ensure that they are also applied afterwards.
Please let this not be yet another sector where we subsequently have to lament the lack of enforcement.
I should like to address one final point. We must not content ourselves with sealing another hole in the safety net and shutting our eyes to the fact that, where transport safety in Europe is concerned, there is still much more to be done.
In this context, I should like to make a request and ask the Commissioner responsible, who is with us here today, to table an appropriate text as soon as possible with a view to continuing to make it safer for traffic to transit tunnels in the future, so that we in Europe do not have to experience any more such disasters on this scale.
Madam President, first of all I should like to thank Mr Koch for his report which has, at its heart, the issue of transport safety.
The report looks at the issue of harmonising the examination requirements for safety advisors working in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway.
I congratulate him on his excellent report.
Transport safety has sadly been in the news recently: the Paddington rail crash in London, the terrible rail crash in Norway, the two aviation crashes involving EU citizens and the natural disaster involving the Erika off Brittany - all within the last four months - remind us that transport safety can never be taken for granted and that those charged with protecting the public must be highly motivated and highly qualified.
The rapporteur has pointed out to the House that in its common position the Council has accepted six of Parliament's ten amendments put forward at first reading and that the substance of Parliament's other amendments has been retained.
My Group will therefore support the common position and looks forward to the enactment of the legislation which will provide us with yet another tool in our fight to make transport in the European Union as safe as possible.
When it comes to safety my Group will always support any initiatives to improve transport safety.
We still have a lot of work to do in this area as recent events have proved.
Madam President, I would like to make a few comments.
I would like, first of all, to thank the rapporteur for his exceptionally accurate and technical work on the report and, secondly, the Commission for the proposal it has submitted.
We are concerned here with the harmonisation of examination requirements but also, in fact, with minimum requirements.
This is a pity, in a sense.
Needless to say, safety on roads, railways and inland waterways is of key importance and, given the international nature of these types of transport, training for safety advisors should also be harmonised, therefore, as well as the requirements of the new ADR, for example, which is under way.
This is important, but so is enforcement and there are, of course, a number of reasons why we need to pay particular attention to this.
Just think of the road accidents which have occurred over recent years, for example in Belgium, the Netherlands and a number of other countries where lorries carrying dangerous goods continued to drive in foggy conditions when really they should have pulled off the road instead.
Or ships from Eastern Europe which moor adjacent to ships over here, with all the obvious risks that this entails.
Furthermore, it has transpired that research in the ports in Belgium, Finland, but also in Japan has shown that 50% of containers with partially dangerous cargo are not delivered correctly for shipment.
In short, the issue is an important one.
If we look at the situation where safety advisers are concerned, in a number of countries it is compulsory to employ such safety advisers in companies as from 1 January of this year.
There will be major problems with enforcing this rule at present, especially with smaller companies, as these cannot afford safety advisors.
These smaller companies either dispose of their cargo or mix it with other cargo, which causes problems.
It is therefore also being requested that ISO 9002 certificates possibly include the finer details of these activities in the form of annual reports and company analyses.
The work is done. All that remains is the business of enforcement.
I would like to mention one final point.
With regard to enforcement, proper agreements must also be concluded with the Eastern European countries because they will not enter into treaties which deal with this matter until 1 July 2001, that is to say in eighteen months' time.
This gives them a competitive edge for the interim period.
This is not in itself anything dreadful, but we should prioritise particularly the safety aspects for goods transported by road, rail and inland waterways and incorporate these, as part of the acquis communautaire, as soon as possible and present them to the acceding states.
Madam President, the importance of transport safety is highlighted on a regular basis in this Parliament and rightly so.
The ever increasing volume of goods passing through Europe entails all kinds of risks, known and unknown, for employees and the social environment.
Those having to deal with these risks should therefore meet stringent requirements.
The relevant standards which have been laid down in another Directive, 95/35/EC, seem sufficiently adequate to advise people in a responsible manner on the organisation of the transport of dangerous goods.
I am very pleased that agreement has also been reached with the Council on minimum standards regarding examinations, although I would have preferred it if uniform, set standards and modules had been established, so that certificates would be of equal value internationally.
This, however, does not seem feasible.
Finally, the amendment tabled by the rapporteur is perfectly logical and I can, therefore, give it my wholehearted support.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first like to congratulate Mr Koch on his reports which, though technical, are nonetheless of very great significance for safety.
I should like to make just a few comments.
Firstly, I should like to ask the Commissioner - and I am convinced that my request will fall on fertile ground - to ensure that more attention is paid to the issue of safety, be it on the roads, on the waterways or at sea.
Considering that it is only today that we are dealing with a Commission proposal first made on 19 March 1998, even though Parliament responded relatively quickly, this time lag is a little too long.
This is not just the fault of the Commission, but I believe that we need to take action more quickly so as to achieve harmonisation in this area as well.
My second point has already been mentioned: it concerns the minimum standards.