GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the appalling figure of 42,000 deaths a year on the roads of the European Union, the estimated 1.7 million injuries, are a constant reminder that we must give top priority to the issue of road safety. These figures do not only represent immense personal suffering, they also mean enormous economic losses and costs. These are estimated at EUR 100 billion, accounting for some 2% of the gross domestic product of all the European Member States. That is more than all the European Union Member States put together spend on culture. I want to give warm thanks to the rapporteur and I especially welcome the fact that she has concentrated on three priority areas: accident prevention, injury prevention and post-impact care and rehabilitation. In my view that makes it clear that road safety cannot be improved to the required level by individual, selective measures but only by a whole raft of measures, which include road user education, speed limits, alcohol limits, better road infrastructure, traffic control systems, improved vehicle safety standards, stricter checks on observance of road traffic rules and also constant assessment of vehicles on the roads. That is why I find it extremely regrettable that the amendment on harmonising the re-registration of cars that have been involved in accidents in the European Union was not adopted, although independent reports clearly demonstrate that there is a substantial link between vehicles that have been in an accident once and their renewed involvement in accidents with an ensuing higher death toll. I just want to address the previous speaker for a moment. You know I tabled an amendment concerned in particular with the question of motorcyclists and safety barriers, and I would be glad if you and your group could endorse it tomorrow, since I myself am a motorcyclist and am therefore obviously very familiar with this problem.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is not the first time that this argument has caused lively debate and equally lively and difficult decisions in this Parliament. It is our job once again to attempt a real balancing act in reconciling as far as possible two opposing demands: the demand to limit the effects of transport, by those who mainly see an environmental cost in this and are therefore primarily concerned with the animals’ health, and the demand to take financial costs into account as well, by those who want to keep transport costs down, but without ever neglecting the physical wellbeing of the livestock being transported. In short, the matter deserves our full attention, but in these difficult judgments it is a relief to note the great advances made by technology, which today provides hauliers – that hard-working, industrious group – with increasingly comfortable vehicles, fitted with fans, mangers and drinking systems with water for rehydration. With these new devices, more comfortable and especially longer journeys may be possible, although there must still be rest periods, which should in turn be increased to up to two hours. Then there is a debate on the problem of unloading and reloading the animals, an operation which does not always achieve its intended aim, which is to help the animals rest. Farmers and hauliers, and also environmentalists, tend to think that this type of operation, especially for small animals – I am thinking of calves – may cause even greater stress than remaining on board, especially on those vehicles that I have mentioned, with air-conditioning, water for rehydration and a ready supply of feed. This too is a proposal that should not be ignored, so as not to make the wrong decision or repeat problems that have already been debated. One would, of course, have to be inside the head or the mind of a calf to be sure of reaching the right decision, but unfortunately a calf does not think and, most of all, it does not vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Echerer, having kept us all informed on a subject which too often is relegated to the sidelines of our debates here, has shown herself to be a late night performer deserving of her intellectual property and of successive royalties. I have to declare an interest: as a broadcaster and a film producer in my time, I am still in receipt of hard-won royalties of one kind or another from some of these activities. We are looking today in the world from which I emerged, at a situation where diversity of output is growing and where the power of those who control that output and buy the rights in it is also growing. Those who currently do not have a negotiated position for more than one payment for their own activities are the losers in all of that. For those in the audio-visual sector, this is a situation which has worsened, not improved. As the questioner pointed out, music performers have a very strong union which over the years has been able to protect their position. For producers there is now some degree of recompense and this can be negotiated over time. No such rights apply in the case of audio-visual performers. We know precisely what they face because without the protection of treaty they are constantly confronting a larger power - one which has all the power and all the regiments of lawyers you could possibly want - which can smash them down. It took the great artist Peggy Lee nearly 20 years to outface the Disney Corporation to receive continuing payments for the voiceovers that she had done for some Disney cartoon films. If it took her that long because she had no power of treaty to support her, what happens to the unknown and obscure artist who is placed in the position which the questioner has raised tonight? I have one final question which perhaps will not be answered now, but which will recur in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. We know that on the eve of the WIPO informal meeting, we have one further chance to address this matter in September. What happens if those negotiations fail, as the last ones and the ones before that failed? What is the Commission going to do then? Are we going to persist with this issue, or are we going to lay it aside with a regretful sigh while the power of those who own the rights and jealously maintain them is extended, and while the audio-visual artists remain confined in the shadows?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would first like to thank my colleagues for their constructive and objective cooperation, which has resulted in this joint motion for a resolution. In the course of 13 project modifications, environmental impact assessment has been simply disregarded. As Mrs Flemming said, it is a long time since the Espoo Convention was signed. It should have been ratified by the Czech Parliament at the beginning of the year and transposed into national law, but this has been indefinitely delayed without any reasons being given. Despite this, the constant concerns about safety expressed by the public, in the press and also in private discussions are not being taken seriously. During the last bilateral meetings between Czech, Austrian and German experts on 2 and 5 September this year, it was once again stated that Temelín does not meet German safety standards and would not, therefore, receive an operating licence in Germany. My fourth point is that electricity from Temelín is not intended for internal consumption: it is intended for export, and at dumping prices at that. Fifthly, the safety of European citizens is at stake here and our responsibility towards them should be adequate grounds for action. The Commission says that we do not have any legal options here. Well, the Commission has known that for a long time. Did the Commission expect that somebody would just pull a legal measure out of the hat? No. I expect that the ' view will be the well-established one that safety and nuclear power stations are two incompatible concepts. The fact of the matter is that there are eastern European nuclear power stations and western European nuclear power stations. Double standards are being applied here, and that must stop. Our friends in the Commission have to accept that you cannot use legal measures alone to solve every single problem. I therefore expect the Commission and the Council to demonstrate together the same strong and combined political will that the European Parliament is displaying with this motion for a resolution. I would like to comment on the Technical Group of Independent Members' amendment, which does not include any sensible or new requirements apart from a hint at compromise. I cannot vote for this policy. It is simply populist to gloss over the long-standing failure or lack of interest on the part of politicians towards this issue by threatening a veto – it will not have the desired effect and it will not create a constructive basis for negotiations. The safety of Europe's citizens and, thus, confidence in the Community should be a priority for us all. Our motion for a resolution is enormously important for the people of Europe and above all for the Czech public. I hope that we will not disappoint them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the rapporteur has done a very good piece of work with this report and we can be pleased that after so many years of negotiations Egypt has at last agreed with us to sign this report. A short time ago we voted for a deferral of this report and I think anyone who really wants to address the question of human rights in Egypt must vote in favour of this report. This report gives us, the European Union, the ability to take up this matter because we have this human rights clause in Article 2. Anyone who is really interested in peace in the Middle East must support this report in any case because it strengthens a country that has been fighting for peace in the Middle East for years. I cannot understand why honourable Members who voted unanimously in favour of this report a week ago in committee now have reservations. Nothing in Egypt has changed, I do not know where anything has changed that would make anybody take a different stance now than the one we took in committee. I would like to raise one final point, that is the letter that the Speaker of the Egyptian Parliament has written to us. I would like to say that it is unusual to try to influence a decision in this way, an absolutely independent decision of a parliament, and for this reason I shall tomorrow be tabling an oral amendment on behalf of my group, as already arranged with the rapporteur.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think I am in danger of being complacent, as figures are not really open to interpretation. I might only be looking at one side of the coin, however. Nonetheless, it is pleasing to note that the number of people unemployed in the European Union has fallen dramatically. The total stood at 17 million in 1997 but by 2002 it was down to 13.5 million. The scenario and pace are now quite different. Of course, I have to admit there is another side to this coin. A hard core of 7.4% of the unemployed have never actually worked, have lost their job, or face major obstacles in getting back into work. In general, these are older people. At least, they are likely to be too old to benefit from schemes for the young, and too young to be considered for early retirement. Alternatively, they might be young and lack the necessary experience and training. I have already referred to two groups in particular need of protection or initiatives, namely the young and older people who have lost their job. Turning to a third such group, on 8 March we celebrated International Working Women’s Day, and its memory should still be fresh in our minds. Women also need support. It is important to honour the commitment given at the Lisbon Council, namely to ensure that over 60% of women are in employment by 2010 at the latest. The proposal we are debating today encompasses three main objectives. These are to increase the rate of employment, to improve job quality and to open up the labour market to the most disadvantaged groups in society. 2003 is the year of the disabled, and this should be in the forefront of our minds. In addition, the horizontal policies so frequently referred to in the House must permeate all our activities. It is difficult to rank these horizontal policies, but health and safety in the workplace, equality and sustainable development are certainly amongst the most important. It is also vital to ensure the involvement of society as a whole and of all levels of administration, regardless of how close they might be to the citizens. The enlargement countries will be watching our activities with interest too. Mr Mann’s report takes account of all these considerations. The report is to be commended in its original version, and also as it now stands following the improvements made in committee. I congratulate Mr Mann and call for a vote in favour of this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
I tried to tell the House that, as some colleagues know, almost all my livestock contracted foot-and-mouth disease and were slaughtered. However, since I do not consider the proposed Committee of Inquiry will affect me financially, I voted in favour of the inquiry.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, we have reached a serious point, a very serious point. The worst-case scenario of terrorist air attacks on nuclear power stations, long condemned by the and anti-nuclear citizens, is becoming, through force of circumstance, a valid hypothesis. The fact that France has called on its armed forces in an attempt to protect its reactors is evidence that air attacks on nuclear plants are plausible. The French authorities, which have always dismissed the possibility of terrorist attacks, are now forced to admit that their nuclear temples are indeed vulnerable. And will the ground-to-air missiles deployed around the re-processing plant in The Hague be effective against a suicide attack? The German authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna recognise that even the sturdiest nuclear power station would not survive a crash. Throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world, the danger is certainly present, and it is made all the more acute because of the overwhelming number of nuclear reactors. We cannot currently guarantee the safety of our citizens. They are concerned and quite rightly so. Has the Commission taken these disaster scenarios seriously? How will it ensure the safety of our citizens? And does the Commission intend to launch a study into the safety of nuclear power stations, as Germany has? Lastly, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I regret the fact that my fellow Members from other groups did not deem it necessary to follow this debate with a resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like everyone else in this debate I should like to congratulate Mr Lannoye. He and I sometimes cross swords on the issue of other nutritious additives, but in this case we are looking very much at the essence of the burden of proof before this list is yet further extended. He has done a service to the committee and also to this House by pointing out that this procedure appears to be almost always one-way. We need to hear from the Commission on two points of principle: the first is whether the procedures themselves need review as the Commission spokesman suggested in the debate in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy; secondly, whether there is a more efficacious way of removing additives as well as bringing them into effect. It seems to us that the list is getting larger and that the burden of proof must remain with those, be they in Member States, in the Commission or in the Scientific Committees, who want us to adapt these things. I am prepared to accept that some of these are harmless. Indeed, the committee and even Mr Lannoye were prepared to accept E949 and E650. However, whilst I would not claim to be an expert – as no other member of the committee would – on the issue of which of the various propellant sprays can safely be used, enough doubts were raised in committee, not least when we heard from the representative of the Commission, about the propellant sprays themselves. These are apparently needed by manufacturers because they produce an equal spray of fat on the utensil concerned. One of them is there only for professional use. The other two are regarded as safe for all. We all want to look again at this issue and see why they have been chosen and whether we might now hold back any clearance of them, at least until the review which is suggested has been carried through. With regard to the two amendments, my Group, whilst it supports the spirit of what Mr Lannoye proposes in Amendment No 1, would not go as far as this to write the precautionary principle itself into this particular directive. It does not seem to us to be the right place for it. We would prefer to strike out recital 5 and we shall so vote. This is the place to discuss the burden of proof rather than the overall principle of precaution. Finally, as regards Amendment No 2 in the name of my Group, this is purely a drafting amendment to remove references to the codecision procedure. But its meaning remains crystal clear. We do not think these additions should be made unless it can be demonstrated that the consumer benefits. At the end of the line it is for the consumer that this is being done. It is being done in the consumer's name. For that reason we commend Amendment No 2.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking to you in my capacity as the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s rapporteur on the transparency directive. I believe that the compromise proposal that has now been arrived at for consideration at first reading is a good one, and that, as a whole, it deals well with the basic objections that this House expressed to the Commission’s original proposal. We in this House have succeeded in avoiding a whole range of rules that would – if I may say so – have been superfluous and costly. Let me give as just one example the requirement for quarterly reporting, which would – as Mr Skinner said – have cost businesses a great deal, while yielding little. This directive is, after all, meant to prevent things happening in the way they did with Parmalat, Enron, WorldCom and other companies, all of which duly filed quarterly reports, and we can see what the end result was – so let us not burden business with unproductive measures. Secondly, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market attached significance to coherence and conformity with the directive on electronic commercial registers, in which we incorporated an option clause on publication media, enabling the Member States, depending on their own traditions, to make provision for the publication of required information in media other than the Internet. We have managed to get this rule incorporated in this directive too, thus, I believe, ensuring that two directives with similar subject-matter can – as we believe is essential – be handled in the same way by the legislators in the Member States. Moreover, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market is satisfied with the solution that has been found to the question of debt securities. What came out of the deliberations in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs tended to make us rather concerned that we could be put at a disadvantage in negotiations with the Americans when it comes to implementing IAS. I believe that the rule that has now been devised on limiting ‘grandfathering’, avoids that, and that our negotiating position is no worse; we are simply making it more difficult for those who are already in Europe. All things considered, I am happy with this outcome and thank my fellow rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs most warmly for their cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is good to remind ourselves that at the moment there are many people listening other than those in this House. I should like to congratulate Mr Lagendijk, precisely on this symbolic day when we awarded the Sakharov Prize to peace activists from Israel, Palestine and Angola. In my opinion, by broadening our horizons, we retain a sense of realism. We must assess our present actions in the Middle East and Africa, with three million victims in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and we will need to evaluate what we need to do in Afghanistan. We must avoid conflicts, conflicts that become militarised or that flare up again. This requires an integral approach, as has already been underlined by many fellow MEPs. In my one and a half minutes, I should particularly like to draw your attention to one aspect in the report, namely the Civil Peace Corps. Commissioner Patten, I really expect you to come up with an initiative. I am amazed at how much money and how many people can be mobilised over the course of a few months to start a war. Could we not work in an equally focused manner, deploy as many resources, people, when it comes to keeping the peace and preventing war? And that is why I applaud this Civil Peace Corps. The funding and the framework are in place. If the political will is there, then what are we waiting for!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we in the Group of the are pleased that we have, at any event, succeeded in agreeing upon a resolution, even though we should, of course, have liked it to be stronger on certain points. Fifteen years after Chernobyl, the safety of nuclear power and its effects upon health are the subject of this resolution. Chernobyl is a constant reminder to us that we cannot continue to ignore the risks of nuclear power, and it constitutes the clearest warning of all about the threat posed by nuclear power to our whole existence. I would say to the previous speaker that nuclear accidents were not the invention of Communism. Rather, accidents have also occurred in the United States and Japan. Is that at least not something we should be able to agree about? The UN’s Department for Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 9 million people have been affected directly or indirectly by the disaster in Chernobyl. In Belarus, 18 per cent of the total population live in a heavily polluted environment. These figures are extremely high, considering what they mean for individual people. Just as Commissioner Wallström pointed out, children are the most vulnerable. The World Health Organisation reports that the annual rate of thyroid gland cancer among children in the Gomel area of Belarus and the most affected areas in Ukraine exceeds the normal values by almost a hundred times. The question is whether we have learned anything since then. Is the precautionary principle being applied today? EU funds are still being handed out for the purpose of completing the nuclear reactors in Ukraine, and Euratom still spreads the gospel of nuclear power, praising its splendid qualities. It is, of course, commendable that the EU should contribute to nuclear safety, but should we not also at some point provide funds for closing down nuclear power stations? I want to ask Commissioner Wallström if the Commission has any plans to require the applicant States to close down nuclear power stations before they can become members of the European Union. I would also add my name to the question asked earlier about what safety standard the EU has. What answer do we give to the applicant States when they ask about this?

Political group: Verts-ALE