GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to raise three issues with regard to this report. Firstly, I have been given a voting list on which Amendment No 9 is not identified as an amendment by the Committee on Budgets. I would like this mistake to be rectified, at least on the voting list that has been attributed to my political group. Secondly, there is an Amendment No 31 that only existed in the German version until yesterday afternoon, and the Portuguese and English language versions contradict each other. The Portuguese version talks of the GNP whereas the English version talks about the GDP. These are two completely different financial concepts which have completely different financial consequences. I have no idea what this amendment means. Thirdly, I would like the Bureau to explain to me why it intends to proceed to a vote on Amendment No 31 when Amendment No 9 is established in our Rules of Procedure, Rule 130(2); in other words, why this amendment is moving further away from the original.

Political group: PSE
The initiatives to introduce Community legislation on minimum health and safety standards for risks to which workers are exposed from noise are a step in the right direction given the truly abysmal situation in certain Member States such as Greece, where even the most rudimentary safety mechanisms have still not been introduced. Having said which, we need: - low limit values before action is taken (83 db); - responsibility for action to lie with the employer, not the workers, which is why ear protectors should not be taken into account; - a reference period of one working day, not one week, to avoid extending the exposure of workers to noise and the damage caused by it. These positions are contained in the relevant amendments tabled by the European Parliament, which is why I supported them, but are not included in the Council's common position. Finally, we need control mechanisms to ensure that these measures are put into practice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We voted against this motion for a joint resolution as, behind its convoluted words and self-congratulation, it is mainly seeking to clear the Russian authorities of responsibility for the dirty war that it is waging in Chechnya. While we condemn terrorism in any form, it is shocking that the motion for a joint resolution only expresses its 'firm condemnation' of the terrorist attacks in Moscow, and not of the state terrorism conducted by the Russian army against the civil population in Chechnya. As for the progress of neutralisation of Chechen terrorists in Moscow, it not only shows the ignominy of terrorism, but also the total contempt of the Russian authorities for their own citizens. We are in favour of establishing the closest possible links between the people of the European Union and Russia, but against the complicity between their leaders, some of which are preparing for war against Iraq while the others are at war against the Chechens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, whom I thank for her willingness to attend this sitting, I must say that I am one of those who believe that the Brussels Summit had the undeniable merit of unblocking enlargement’s financial procedure and of setting the rules for agricultural funding for the next ten years. It would be a mistake, however, to confuse this funding stability with the status quo of the CAP. There are four reasons for this: - the first is that the CAP in its current form runs counter to the multifunctional approach to farming, which requires a substantial strengthening of its second pillar. And, unless this is achieved by means of transferring funds from the first pillar, I fail to see where we will find the resources to pay for this in the context of enlargement to 25, 27 and later perhaps even to 28 States; - the second reason is that defending the status quo of the blue box in WTO negotiations will cost us very dear. The price we might have to pay could be to make concessions on issues as important as access to the market, the protection of denominations of origin and even our own aid from the blue box; - the third reason is that we have, under the CAP, a system of aid that is truly schizophrenic. In other words, it provides aid for some farmers but denies it to others. This is unsustainable in the long term and must be changed for a system of aid that does not discriminate between products and producers and which remedies this imbalance; - the fourth reason for taking action is that the current system of aid is too complicated to be applied in a Union of 25 or 27 members. I believe that it would be preferable to undertake a balanced reform now, before 2004, which guarantees that the markets and their regulatory instruments will be managed, which guarantees Community preference and which guarantees aid for farmers, rather than to do so after enlargement, with the inherent risks of uncertainty about the negotiating and decision-making procedures in the first few years of the enlarged Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for this report, which refers to the extension of the Tempus III programme. The words ‘Tempus fugit’ have come to mind. What has ‘Tempus fugit’ got to do with anything? It is written on many clocks. I am sorry, Mr President, but I reflected that, with the passing of time, young people and workers become pensioners if they are lucky. Therefore, the invitation I extend – to myself and also to Mr Ojeda Sanz and to his Tempus III programme – is to bear in mind that we need to think harder, work harder, do more and make greater efforts to ensure that young people – who will, if they are lucky, become pensioners one day in the future – are also able to live comfortably during this period of their lives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, wealth is just as unevenly distributed throughout the world as it ever has been. In the last five years, since the WTO was set up, the differences have become even more marked, and those countries which cannot count themselves amongst the leading industrial nations have become even more dependent. That is why we do not need new rounds on liberalisation, instead we need a fundamental analysis and evaluation of the effects of the Uruguay Round on countries, people and the environment. The WTO Round of Ministers is the right place for this. A fundamental reform of the institution itself is also called for. Transparency, democratic control and the equal participation of all countries, amongst other things, must be guaranteed. Now on the subject of agriculture: if we stay on our current course, as the Commission and the USA would like, farmers with small- and medium-sized holdings will be the ones to suffer, both here and also in developing countries. They cannot be made to compete with one another. That is why better conditions for entering the market must be obtained for developing countries and at the same time, all export subsidies for farm products from the EU should be withdrawn. The recognition of safeguarding food as a ‘non trade concern’ according to Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture must also be accepted. A whole raft of Southern countries is quite rightly demanding a renegotiation of the TRIPs Agreement because they are losing the right to use their own resources. We are also completely against the patenting of living things. We must also refuse to accept any agreement similar to the MAI agreement on investments alone at a WTO level. Other international institutions such as the UN and the ILU must unite on this issue. By combining their forces they would be able to say that the welfare of all people will come to the fore in Seattle, and not the interests of big companies, of the rich and powerful such as well as the interests of the European Union and various elites and oligarchies. The Commission should not accept a mandate for negotiation which goes against human rights, social rights and the environment. What developing countries need, as they are not equally strong economic partners, is a special position laid down by agreement, and this should be the rule, not the exception. It is not only to them that we owe this, but also to all of us here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Parliament, and in particular its Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, has been the driving force for approving specific policies and programmes for the outermost regions. The unanimous approval by the members of the Committee on Regional Policy of the report presented by Mrs Sudre demonstrates the European Parliament’s adherence to one of its most important commitments. I should therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur and the Committee on Regional Policy on their excellent work. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the legal basis of these specific policies was established and their scope was increased. One of the areas in which this approach has had the greatest impact is agricultural policy. By means of various partial derogations from the principles of the CAP, and through the implementation of specific programmes for agricultural development, we have been able to see an end to the desertification of archipelagos such as the Azores. Those living in rural communities on the islands have also seen an improvement in their living conditions. The experience of almost a decade and the new challenges created by developments in the common agricultural policy suggest that these programmes should be revised in order to sustain the ability of these regions to survive in the new climate of competition. The Treaty specifically stipulates that economic dependence on a small number of products is one of the factors on which the European institutions are bound to adopt specific measures for the implementation of common policies. The dependence of agriculture and the whole economy of the Azores on milk production is unparalleled anywhere else in the Union. All of us in the Azores therefore hope that the Commission, in view of the Treaty and in view of Parliament’s position, will rapidly propose the necessary changes to the way the CAP is implemented in the Azores.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Perry has reminded us of where the directive has succeeded and he has also indicated, very politely, where we have gone too slowly. We have gone too slowly in tackling the problem of media concentration, the limits to public access and the progress we have to make towards a sensitive, but forceful, restatement of this directive and its contents framework. I would say to the Commissioner that we are now in the 52nd month of this Parliament and more conferences and discussions simply intended to spin out time until the end of the Parliament are not good enough. I thank Mr Perry for accepting my own amendments on access in paragraph 44. Television must empower as well as entertain. Digital broadcasting can reach those with sensory deprivation just as well as it can reach the mass audience. In this year, above all, we should make progress to that end.

Political group: PSE
In the run-up to the compulsory exchange of bank notes and coins of eleven Member States for euro coins and notes all attention is being focused on the annoyance that this will generate shortly after the turn of the year. Mr Maaten’s proposals attempt to make that process run faster and more efficiently. But the fundamental problem is more connected with the annual report of the European Central Bank. Unlike Mrs Randzio-Plath, the rapporteur, I see no reason for compliments. The value of the euro had to be kept up by means of a stability pact, which forces national governments to reduce the level of expenditure and refrain from taking out loans. That policy has failed completely, now that the euro has fallen considerably below the dollar, not temporarily, but for a considerable amount of time. In the meantime, in a number of Member States, including the Netherlands, annual inflation is already higher than the interest rate. Price stability will probably not survive the coming turn of the year. It no longer looks as if the euro will gain a position as an international currency, as the dollar has. As a result, it is not possible either to follow the American model and pass on a portion of the annual government deficit to the rest of the world, which continues to compete for possession of an exchange currency that is falling in value. In short, the ECB’s efforts have resulted in a flop that forces us to reject this annual report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too congratulate the rapporteur on the report which he will present to us tomorrow. We know he has worked extremely hard on this report and very closely with others in this Chamber to ensure its success. Clearly the changing industry of financial services lends itself very well to the new technologies which have emerged and continue to emerge across the world. The ability of consumers, confusing as it can be, to pick such technologies, to choose a variety of financial services within the individual Member States, has been with us now for some little time. But the choice of financial products across borders inside Europe is even more recent an affair. This means that services, rather than physical products – and the rights of consumers to have confidence in the performance of those services – is as vital here as it is for manufactured products. The marketing and advertising of services, the claims and boasts of providers, must be checked against the need to allay the fears of risk to consumers, to safeguard their purchases and exchanges by electronic means. This is why my group has so high a regard for the element of consumer safety. The country-of-origin principle is simply the best agreed way of approaching the process of harmonising the standards for attaining an EU-wide application of the guidance for those standards which are to be expected in those nations. At the same time Brussels, too, is clearly more than just an element for consideration by the Commission in this process. The amendments before the House allow for the flexibility required to pursue the exciting new medium of technology, as does the text. In particular I would like to recognise Mr Herzog's concerns, where he rightly points out in his amendments that we need to keep pace with technological change in order to reduce the possibility of criminality, of fraud and of money laundering. My group believes that so long as consumer interests can be asserted and maintained as an essential element of the provisions of this report, then it is obviously going to be willing to withdraw any amendments that might suggest derogations or deletions to the country- of-origin principle. The liberation of e-commerce is the element of any dynamic European economy of the future; the counterbalance that has to be struck and which has to be fully realised is the effects it has on those who would use it as consumers. I commend this report to the House.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the aim of the proposal before us is to crush the current policy on drugs, which is based on three United Nations Conventions. It seriously questions the sense of zero tolerance with regard to drugs. The rapporteur must be given credit for having cunningly hidden her real message behind technical nuances of meaning. The change to the classification of drugs in the UN Conventions, which is called for in the report, is unnecessary. The entire reclassification is merely a code name to disguise the promotion of a liberal policy on drugs. To put it simply: we are speaking here about legalising the use of cannabis, partially decriminalising the sale of cannabis and its derivatives, and making heroin available under supervision. This I cannot agree to. A restrictive drugs policy, in other words zero tolerance, is the only way to adopt a position on drugs. This policy has had good results. In the Nordic countries we have managed to control the drugs problem to a greater extent than elsewhere in Europe. As an example of the results that have been achieved I might mention that there has been a reduction in drug deaths and drug-related crime, and the number of experiments with drugs has levelled off. A sad example of a liberal drugs policy is the ‘model country’ for this trend, the Netherlands. According to Europol statistics, more than 50% of the synthetic drugs circulating in Europe are produced in the Netherlands. Just as my colleague, Mr Oostlander, said here earlier on, it is quite clear that drugs and their use proliferate wherever there is a favourable attitude to them. As background data, the report uses studies by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The importance of these studies wanes, however, when one considers the background of this unit’s former director. In January this person had to resign from his post because it became evident that, in addition to his regular duties, he was promoting the legalisation of drugs. The question of attitude to drugs is one of principle. We politicians have to be conscious of our responsibilities and act in accordance with them. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to think carefully about what sort of message you want to send out in tomorrow’s vote, especially to the young. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not so very unusual for a report to be changed so much through amendments that the rapporteur finds it is no longer true to his basic intentions and accordingly stands down. However, what is hard to grasp politically in this case is the way this has happened. If groups abandon jointly negotiated compromise proposals literally overnight and suddenly put in writing the opposite of their original statements, then that casts some doubt on the very seriousness of this procedure. My group is, of course, aware that a report on the transportation of radioactive materials is not a report on nuclear power as such, but the best way to maximise safety would be if there were nothing to transport. So in this context we are bound to mention keeping output and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods to a minimum. The fact that only 5% or around 75 000 consignments are involved in the nuclear fuel cycle says something not only about the scale of the potential risk, but also about the nature of it. We regard it as incomprehensible that a proposal for a legislative initiative on uniform standards for transporting radioactive materials within the European Union and at its borders, whilst observing the principle of subsidiarity, should be rejected. Nor can we understand why stricter checks on compliance with legislation on the transportation of dangerous goods should be unacceptable. Likewise, we believe that too little attention has been devoted to the issue of exposure thresholds. The Confederal Group of the rejects the report in the form we have before us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, there are some things that are not quite as we would wish them to be in European aviation. Last year, in particular, showed us repeatedly that it is high time to find more common European solutions to ensure that flying in European airspace follows orderly lines again, not to speak of the great dream of limitless freedom above the clouds conjured up by Reinhard Mey. But first and foremost, flying must be safe. We all want flying to remain safe, to see further improvements here in the forefront the rapporteur, Mr Simpson, to whom we owe thanks for an excellent report. There are, however, different views on how to achieve greater safety. I and luckily I am not alone in my view would hope that we leave the practical task of regulating the safety provisions, especially in regard to cabin crew and the accompanying provisions on crew training, to the European Aviation Safety Authority. Surely it should be enough for the European legislator to set out the objectives, rather than getting bogged down in too much detail. Unfortunately, this position did not gain consistent majority support in committee. As a result the text we will be voting on tomorrow includes some rather too detailed provisions, for instance on the kind of training course required and so forth. Perhaps less would be more in this case. Be that as it may, Europe still has a great deal to do on the question of aviation. As we saw in Nice on a very general basis, here too on a more specific basis we could plead for fewer national solutions and a more European approach. The Simpson report is a good step along this road. Let us take that step tomorrow and then pursue it further in a politically convincing manner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just under nine months to go and we shall witness the birth of what is expected to be a sturdy euro, a euro that will see the light of the world of real payment transactions. Our citizens will finally hold it in their hands. It has all the right talents: the economic clout of 12 of the 15 Member States of the EU, low rates of inflation, falling national debts and historically low interest rates. It will be well protected by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt am Main – which knows all there is to know about stability, and really has done what Othmar Karas said, i.e. operated a “steady-hand” policy, which is now paying off. Anyone who has managed to withstand the pessimism, the years of being underrated like the euro has, is worth investing in. The situation in the euro zone, with over 2.5 million new jobs in three years is good, although caution is needed in the face of the slowdown in the United States. Growth and investment forecasts are being revised downwards everywhere. There is the threat of weakening exports and increasing problems in funding social security systems. The euphoria over the new economy has fallen into the abyss along with the fall in share prices. Today it would appear that the old economy is not so old after all. We must take strategic precautions: economic policy, monetary policy and social policy must be coordinated. We must improve the framework conditions for innovative start ups. We must make it easier to invest in information and communications technologies. Now more than ever, the Member States need to get on and reform their education and training plans, which should be geared to the challenges of these new technologies and the increasing need for mobility. Higher qualifications improve employability, especially in the knowledge society which we keep on talking about. We also need to secure permanent and effective social protection, and this can only be done if those in political power put funding right at the top of their agenda. The social partners’ agenda needs to include maintaining jobs for older people, creating more jobs and giving employees a share in company profits. The social market economy, which Karl von Wogau frequently refers to, is reflected in his excellent report. We in the Group agreed with him unanimously. It includes liberalisation and solidarity, competition and equal opportunities and environmentally-friendly growth. The social market economy is more than just an economic model. This social model will be the basis for the new European home market which Karl von Wogau has been forecasting, and that does have a future.

Political group: PPE-DE