GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Group I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Koch, for what is truly an excellent report, closing this big loophole in seatbelt legislation. I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Group, in particular to thank Commissioner Liikanen for bringing forward this proposal. There is no difference between us on the core of the proposal, but merely on this issue of side-facing seats. In the short time available I wish to focus on that issue alone. That does not mean to say that I do not applaud the rapporteur for his efforts on the bulk of the proposal. However, the issue is an important one. If we prohibit seats without seatbelts that face forward, why then - if the rapporteur has his way - are we not doing the same thing for side-facing seats? Far be it from me to defend the Commissioner - I am sure he will respond to these points. However, we cannot support the committee amendments. There is no sound logical reason why side-facing seats are safe. Surely the laws of gravity apply to people facing sideways, just as they do to people facing forwards. Indeed all the research from the Commission suggests that these seats are simply not safe and that no safe technology exists to secure the occupants of side-facing seats. To use the comparison of city buses is just not credible. City buses, in the main, travel at low speeds in towns and cities. We are talking about coaches, perhaps travelling at 90 kilometres per hour on motorways. The big question for our Group, for me - and, I am sure, the big question for Parliament, when we vote - is how we can demand that our citizens wear seatbelts if we send confusing signals. If the bulk of people have to wear a seatbelt in a coach but those at the back, in a so-called cosy corner, do not have to wear one, it simply does not make sense. Let us not forget that one of the principal causes of death and serious injury on the roads in the European Union is still, sadly, people not wearing a seatbelt. Parliament has to send out a very clear, simple message when we vote tomorrow, and say that people travelling in one of these vehicles must wear a seatbelt. Given that there is no technology for side-facing seats, then we must say to industry that these particular seats must be phased out. To be pragmatic and practical, if industry can come up with a safety-belt for side-facing seats then the Group will of course, think again, as, I am sure, will the Commissioner. There is not much dividing us. But it is important that we send out a clear, simple message tomorrow that if you travel in these vehicles in the future, you must wear a seatbelt and that there will be no derogations, no room for doubt. It must be clear and simple. I am sure that is what we will say tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall confine my observations to Mr Decourrière’s report. The INTERREG Community Initiative Programme is an extremely important tool in terms of the development and regional planning of European territory, most particularly with reference to effectively taking into account the relationship between the centre of the European Union and its outlying regions. INTERREG must, therefore, be an instrument promoting territorial cohesion throughout the Union if we do not wish to see a two– or even three-speed European territory. It is obvious to me that the regional and local authorities, and their representative bodies, the Committee of the Regions and, of course, the European Parliament should have been involved in the clearest way possible and at the earliest possible opportunity framing this programme. Indeed, I am forced to observe that this was not the case when the Commission drew up its communication, published on 13 October last year. Even though I approve of the general guidelines of INTERREG III, I feel it is extremely important to ensure better coordination between this programme, financed by the ERDF, and the other external cooperation funds, including in particular the European Development Fund, intended for ACP countries. In this connection, I should like to thank the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for adopting one of my amendments adding the EDF to the list of these funds. The most remote regions, particularly the four French overseas departments, must be able to coordinate INTERREG III and the EDF in order to fund, in turn, cooperation projects with their ACP neighbours in their respective geographical areas. Furthermore, I would ask the Commission to please reconsider the limited opportunities that have been offered to the most remote and island regions according to the guidelines put forward in the communication. It is essential for these regions to be able to benefit fully from INTERREG III, just like all the other regions in the Union, especially now that the REGIS programme dedicated to such isolated regions has been dropped. Finally, in conclusion, I would like to express my regret at the low level of funding allocated to strand C, for interregional cooperation, even though the added value this offers the Community is undeniable.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. – Madam President, for the Committee on Foreign Affairs there are two key issues in this discharge: transparency and implementation. On transparency, I had an interesting time when I asked Parliament's officials if they could let me have a list of what the Commission had done on the 2000 budget in relation to those items to which Parliament had adopted amendments to the budget, in terms of both amounts of money and also remarks. I was told that, even if it were possible, it would take several months to find this information. That is totally ridiculous because, if Parliament adopts amendments to the budget, it is elementary that there should be a mechanism to follow up on those amendments to know exactly what has happened. The fault lies in part with Parliament, because we do not scrutinise and follow up the budget as we should. I do not blame the Committee on Budgetary Control but the individual committees which do not often take that responsibility. The fault also lies with the Commission because we need greater clarity of information in order to analyse budget implementation. There should be much better dialogue between Parliament and the Commission to identify very clearly what action has been taken on European Parliament priorities. I suspect the Commission far too often simply ignores what Parliament amends in the budget. We need to be able to indicate that. On the common foreign and security policy, we need greater clarity: we are not clear on who does what. That is why I support the idea of an interinstitutional agreement setting out exactly the Commission's role in the CFSP. On implementation, there was for the 2000 budget again a very high concentration of commitments at the end of the year for Latin America, Asia and so on. The imbalance between commitments and payments continues to give cause for concern, as indeed do the remarks of the Court of the Auditors in relation to the TACIS programme. I recognise the improvements the Commission has made – in particular the use of the website to provide information – but we have to focus on transparency and implementation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to table a procedural motion. I failed to notice that we had moved on from the procedural motions to the report. I would like to raise a minor motion on something that could be deemed insignificant, but as each day passes, I get increasingly frustrated at the crazy amounts of paper being wasted in this establishment. It is not just a lot of energy on words that is being wasted here, there is an incredible amount of paper wasted and there is no sign of any kind of recycling scheme. At the other Parliament based in Brussels, we at least have cardboard boxes where we can deposit the massive amounts of paper which we no longer need. At this end, despite the ultra-modern and sophisticated design of this building, I have as yet been unable to detect the existence of such practical, inexpensive cardboard boxes which can play a key role in the recycling of paper. I would like to ask you to make a little effort here. Surely, the budget could stretch to a few cardboard boxes for the Members where we can stock paper for recycling purposes.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, many of us today have voted for the trade agreement with Pakistan in the belief that this is a sensible and essential step forward to progress the issue of human rights and further democratisation of Pakistan. It may at first seem a little peculiar to see who is voting on the one hand for the trade agreement while at the same time supporting the resolution on the issue of human rights in Pakistan. I do not believe there is a contradiction. The votes today are quite sensible and straightforward. We have pushed forward the issue of developing economic and trade links with Pakistan. We have pushed forward the issue of developing Pakistan's economy which, I believe, was an important step in ensuring that we will see further democratisation in Pakistan, further work towards the development of human rights, and fulfilment of the demands made in our second resolution which I was happy to support. It is a good day for Pakistan, for Kashmir, and for the Indian subcontinent and I am very pleased to have been here today.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the oral amendment to Article 4(3) is as follows: 'The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the difference between all of the technical features of the patent claim and the state of the art, irrespective of whether or not such features are accompanied by non-technical features.' This amendment merges my original Amendments 110 and 16. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0232/2003) by Mr Whitehead, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a general Framework for financing Community actions in support of consumer policy for the years 2004-2007 [COM(2003) 44 – C5-0022/2003 – 2003/0020(COD)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0302/2003) by Mr Jonckheer, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the draft Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity – Renewed consultation [8084/2003 – C5-0192/2003 – 1997/0111(CNS)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0289/2003) by Mr Souchet, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the extension of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of Mauritius on fishing in Mauritian waters for the period 3 December 2002 to 2 December 2003 [COM(2003) 202 – C5-0236/2003 – 2003/0074(CNS)] (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0259/2003) by Mr Andersson, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Joint Report by the Commission and the Council on Adequate and sustainable pensions [COM(2002) 737 – 2003/2040(INI)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, before enlargement was on the cards, the debate was already being held in Europe of whether or not this issue would stand in the way of deepening. That debate has now faded and we have, in fact, all become enthusiastic about this enlargement. However, if the IGC debates go the same way, and if people really want to undermine the power of the European Parliament, which is very limited as it is, the question will once again be raised of whether Europe is not being hindered by this enlargement. In the past, the IGC has not managed to establish efficient, transparent and democratic structures, and at this rate, if the results of the Convention are now being brushed aside, we are at risk of ending up in a debate that is altogether different. It is a disgrace that people should want to undermine the power of the European Parliament in the budgetary field. A number of questions remain. Mr Verheugen, the protection of minorities was a condition for accession, but how will we protect the minorities once they form part of the European Union? This question remains unanswered because this issue has not been solved for current EU Member States either. How will the European Union deal with the regions that have legislative powers but cannot intervene in matters that are regulated at European level and are nonetheless of vital importance to them? Scotland and the fisheries issue spring to mind. How can this be referred to the Committee of the Regions, given that that Committee is totally inadequate in terms of composition, power and functioning? Consider, too, the activities of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control. The Committee of the Regions is not the answer to the regions’ laments. It should be reformed or else abolished. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, today we have genuine reason to be pleased, because I am convinced that, with the approval, in a few minutes, of Mr Watson’s reports, we will be taking another important step towards the creation of the common European area of justice, freedom and security that we all wish to see. Another reason for this Parliament and, of course, for me personally, to be pleased, is the fact that the decisions adopted by the Council at the Laeken Summit take up the tenor of the positions that this Parliament has expressed on several occasions. I cannot however, approve the lack of sensitivity that the Council has shown towards Parliament – and this has been recognised by fellow Members and by the Council itself – with regard to consultation on the list approved on 27 December 2001. In achieving the difficult balance between freedom and security, a position in which we often find ourselves at the moment, we are taking the appropriate measures. We cannot postpone the approval of resolutions and democratic standards which protect democrats against the terrorists and against those who prevent the exercise of the democratic freedom of Europe’s citizens. At the same time, it is also our duty to acknowledge that we have a certain responsibility to continue to create this area of freedom and security, an aspect that some Members of this House have already put forward in various amendments. Sometime very soon, we will have to address these issues, but today is not the right time.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Bösch report but I did so with some reluctance as I share along with many of my colleagues doubts about a European Public Prosecutor and its role. However, as this role has been confined to criminal offences committed against the financial interests of the European Communities by members and employees of EU institutions, then I felt this restricted role is worth supporting. The location of this office in Luxembourg is sensible due to the proximity of the European Court of Justice. The widening of the scope of the European Public Prosecutors office will have to be carefully monitored so as not to encroach into the Member States competence.

Political group: PSE
Marine safety must be reinforced in Europe. It must even become a priority. Otherwise, there is the risk of seeing, in the near future, all our seas and oceans polluted, as the Atlantic coast is by the successive losses of the Erika and Prestige oil tankers. That is why the Member States must, as soon as possible, withdraw from service the single-hulled tankers that are often the cause of disasters, but also make port inspections more stringent and impose stricter rules upon the companies that issue certificates of seaworthiness. In short, they must apply the Erika package of December 1999 indefinitely. That is why, too, I have voted in favour of the excellent report by my colleague, Mr Sterckx. It includes a whole series of innovative measures to prevent oil slicks and effectively combat them: a European coastguard service, a victim compensation fund and ports of refuge made available for welcoming ships ‘in distress’. I have also voted in favour of setting up a temporary parliamentary commission to cast as much light as possible upon the Prestige disaster, to discover who was responsible and to take action for the future. In this way, it will, once and for all, be the polluter who genuinely pays, as it is in the United States with its Oil Pollution Act.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I also consider the results of the ministerial conference in Doha to be positive and I would therefore like to join other Members in congratulating Commissioner Lamy, Commissioner Fischler and the Council on their unquestionable contribution to this success. It is true that the final declaration does not say everything it should say and, I would say, that sometimes it says more than it should say, but any negotiation means reaching compromises and compromise requires concessions. The thing we must really value about Doha is the bringing together of the diverging, and sometimes contradictory, interests of the Member countries of the WTO and an agreement has been reached to launch a new round, set an agenda, a timetable and a working programme, and, secondly, that the development dimension has been fully integrated into all negotiations and that the least-developed countries and the developing countries have spoken out strongly and their voice has been heard and their concerns taken into account. The WTO train, as you said quite rightly, Commissioner Lamy, is back on the rails and has already left the station. I would add that furthermore the means have been provided so that its destination may be a sustainable growth which also benefits the poorest countries. However, in order for that train to reach its destination, the necessary means must be adopted, the texts must be interpreted correctly, since they are full of structural ambiguities, and guarantee reciprocity in the opening up of the markets and full respect for the rules which govern multilateral trade. In order to help to overcome the barrier of poverty once and for all, we must adopt the necessary measures to facilitate access, above all by the least-developed countries, because these countries may suffer as a result of the multilateral commercial system, due to the advantages we offer to the developing countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe we are all agreed that the sustainability of salt-water fisheries resources, and provisions to maintain it, are essential for the fisheries sector. A common fisheries policy (CFP) cannot, however, be blindly applied: it must take account of local and regional variations between different fisheries, fleets and regions of the Member States dependent on this sector, and the populations involved. For that reason, a degree of participation on the part of fishermen and their associations is essential. Their experience is vital. This requirement also means, however, that if the CFP is to be correctly applied, it is essential to guarantee flexibility for Member States in the application of measures for the management of the fishing effort. We must take into account experimental local projects developed by the fishermen themselves. The rapporteur mentions such projects in the Mediterranean. This also suggests that the Member States should be able to enforce conservation measures themselves, since it is they who know most about the state of resources. Another point relates to promoting research, since measures to conserve and evaluate the state of resources should be taken on the basis of sound scientific opinion, with the participation of fishermen and their associations. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to promote research, a step the rapporteur also proposes for the Mediterranean in his report. We are also in favour of delegating the responsibility for coastal and other fisheries management to Member States, as well as encouraging the discovery of solutions on a local level. The aim of this, with the principle of subsidiarity in mind, is to reduce the fishing effort. I feel that this is a good path to follow in other areas, such as the Atlantic. In Portugal, for example, as in the Mediterranean, small-scale coastal and non-industrial fishing is very important. While I concur with the rapporteur’s argument that we need to take measures specifically to support such fishing, just as I argued for that need when the 2003 fisheries budget appeared, I would emphasise the need for the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance to help small-scale fishing. I would also emphasise the importance of considering, for various parts of the Atlantic, and in particular for the 200-mile-long Portuguese coast and island territories, identical measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of salt-water fisheries resources to those I upheld for the Mediterranean. I would also like to emphasise, as did the rapporteur, that the decline of fisheries has other causes, notably pollution and sea transport. The sector is therefore often a victim of these phenomena. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, can I just establish for yesterday's Minutes a correction to my vote. I intended to vote yes on the Rübig Report.

Political group: PSE