GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report. Compulsory training for lorry drivers is something that we really need and something that we should have had in place a long time ago. I am sometimes surprised at how far behind Europe is in the area of road safety. After the problem with driving times, this problem therefore also needs to be tackled urgently. If a number of problems are to be solved, we have to approve the report tomorrow. Firstly, the transport sector can become more professional. Better drivers should be driving on our roads. The profession of lorry driver should be made more attractive and also respectable. There is absolutely no room for cowboys on our roads. Secondly, training courses for drivers should also pay attention to the rational use of energy. Experiments show that even experienced drivers can permanently cut their fuel consumption by up to 30% after just one day of additional training. This is not insignificant for a Kyoto-sensitive sector. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important point: safety on our roads will also improve. I am thinking here about training in the use of the obligatory blind spot systems and other safety technology on board lorries, as well as teaching a more defensive driving style which will benefit more vulnerable road users in general and cyclists in particular.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, as we know, this 1993 directive, which lays down minimum conditions governing the organisation of working time, with a view to ensuring a high level of health and safety for workers, should have been transposed into national law by 1996, establishing the possibility of limited derogation. The truth of the matter is that various Member States have used and abused these derogations and have not complied with the provisions therein, especially the upper limit of working time in sectors such as health, and the hotel and catering industries. Once again, now that the seven-year deadline has ela d, the Commission has regrettably given no clear signal as to how the problems that have come to light are to be solved. Hence my endorsement of most of the proposals contained in the Cercas report, in particular the provision of an amended directive resolving existing problems and ensuring a higher level of health and safety protection for workers. I also welcome the comparison study on the repercussions of long working hours on the family and on health, and the effect on both sexes. A further welcome proposal is the provision of protection for freelance workers and others whose safety is endangered by workers exhausted from working such long hours. The Court of Justice has ruled in a number of cases, and has included time spent on call as working time, thereby confirming the fundamental principle that time not entirely available to workers due to work commitments must be regarded as working time. I congratulate Mr Cercas on the work he has carried out and, as he states in his report, derogations in the form of individual opt-out clauses must be scrapped and we must work towards reducing the pressures and eliminating the abuses that undermine family life. My group, the Confederal Group of the , has tabled proposals that would enable us to extend these rights a little further. We have called for a revision of the directive, initially reducing the maximum working week from 48 to 42 hours; and for a gradual reduction in the working week to 36 hours, over the course of the next seven years. We hope that this would lead to further reductions in working time and a redistribution of work in the Member States, which are effective ways of reconciling family and professional life, of promoting equal rights for women and of combating unemployment. Lastly, I deplore the fact that the Group of the European People’s Party persists in disparaging the report approved by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which only serves to show that they are perfectly happy to perpetuate an unacceptable state of affairs that undermines effective health and safety protection of workers. You can therefore be sure that we shall be voting against these proposals, as we did in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Verheugen, one can, if need be, always relate good and bad news on the topic of the Northern Dimension. The good news is that the Council and the Commission say the Northern Dimension is alive and well. The bad news is that nothing much is happening within its framework, except that Parliament, the Council and the Commission are vying with one another to try and extend and at the same time dilute the concept, so that soon it will surely cover the whole of the northern hemisphere. In the region of the Baltic basin and northwestern Russia, however, there are things happening all the time in which the European Union should also be economically involved. The issue of maritime security, or non-security, is one of them. The Union is enlarging and in four months the border between Russia and the Union will have doubled in length. The agreement over Kaliningrad is in danger of becoming a major quarrel as no one seems to be telling Lithuania what is happening or if anything is happening at all. It was amusing to read in the minutes of the EU-Russia Summit about a fast-track feasibility study being made by the end of 2003. That is now six weeks away and the Lithuanians, at least according to what their former president said yesterday, know nothing about it. The northern gas pipeline is probably going to start being built within two or three years which is to go from the Arctic Ocean, past Finland and via the Baltic to Central Europe. Its route from the Arctic to the Baltic lacks infrastructure and it will also presumably pass through primal forest that needs protecting. The Russians will not manage alone in this. A big fuss is made from time to time in the Union about the risks associated with nuclear waste and nuclear power stations in northwestern Russia. Within the framework of the TACIS programme, however, there is a substantial amount of unused resources set aside for nuclear safety projects – some EUR 180 million. Why, then, are these not used for cleaning up nuclear waste in the sea at Litsa Guba and Murmansk, by which I mean decommissioned nuclear submarine reactors and nuclear waste on the shoreline, or ensuring that the power stations at Sosnovibor and Kandalaksha are safe to use? The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, which is coordinated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is an excellent tool. It should also be used elsewhere than in just one project. The St Petersburg Southwestern Wastewater Treatment Plant is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to what is needed. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the Northern dimension still remains on virtually only a verbal level is by no means the fault of the Community. I point the finger at Finland’s present and former governments, for example, for which cooperation in the neighbouring regions does not seem to have been or be worth the bother of initiating any powerful lobbying to spur the European Union into action.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group very much supports the report by Mrs Corbey and the compromise amendments, which improve the text. We also have some amendments of our own which we would urge Members of Parliament to support, particularly as the directive makes it more difficult for Member States with more progressive policies to go ahead in a more environmentally friendly way. There should be nothing to prevent Member States from making progress. I received a briefing from my own Department of the Environment in Ireland today, bemoaning the fact that it was going to be very difficult for Ireland. That is only because Ireland has done nothing about the waste problem or about packaging. In two other amendments we look to the Commission to present a proposal which takes proper account of the role of packaging throughout the logistics chain. It should also be putting forward proposals on prevention and reduction. That is where the problem really lies. We need to reduce and prevent the amount of packaging first of all, not look at what we are going to do with it afterwards, particularly the amount that goes into landfill.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, those of us who were in Abuja and Kano last year for the ACP meeting welcomed President Obasanjo's move from military dictatorship to democracy. We were also aware of the simmering tension in the country, particularly in the north, with outbreaks of violence. Sharia law has been a potent symbol of the cause of that tension, demanded by some Muslims, feared by most Christians and other faiths; partly the result of northern Nigeria not benefiting from independence and oil as the south has done, and a resentment of corruption that they see as chronic in the country. Thousands have died as a result of violence, especially in Kaduna and many Christian homes, churches and businesses have been destroyed. The Zanfara state government has given local vigilante groups the power to implement Sharia law. In reply seventeen southern states have demanded the right to set up their own police forces. Northerners are leaving Lagos after riots that have led to deaths. In the north, journalists in Kano are threatened with Sharia law if they represent it in a negative way. Now we see in Benue and Taraba in east and central Nigeria tribal, not religious, wars. The Jukun and Tiv disputes are about land and ancient rivalries, not about religion. Nineteen soldiers who were trying to keep the peace were abducted and murdered. Then we saw the awful reprisals in which Zakibian, a town of 20 000 people, was destroyed and over 200 people killed. Of course we welcome President Obasanjo's announcement of an inquiry. Ethnic and religious violence must be stopped in Nigeria. There must be equality before the law and not fear and violence. Corruption from whatever source must be rooted out. The European Union must support this. It must also provide humanitarian support for Nigeria, where over 200 people have died of cholera in the last few weeks, and help the people who have been displaced as a result of this violence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Elmar Brok, and all the rapporteurs who examined the files on the individual candidate countries. Even though they contain the odd contradiction, this range of texts gives us the opportunity to draw up a detailed and customised progress report on the negotiations. At the same time, they enable us to gauge the extent of the work accomplished by the Commission and its departments in the context of screening and the negotiations. We now, Commissioner, impatiently await your own progress report on the subject. The accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Cyprus and Malta, provides us with a historic opportunity to unite all the nations of Europe on the basis of shared ideals, and to make the whole continent a more stable place. As a member of the delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee, I should also like to briefly mention this specific case, by way of example. Significant steps have been taken in Latvia towards meeting the political criteria. Admittedly, some progress still has to be made in other areas, such as, to mention just one area which the rapporteur, Mrs Schroedter, did not raise, the modernisation of legal procedures and infrastructures. Nonetheless the political authorities in Latvia are unquestionably determined to bring the process of reform to a successful conclusion, and this bodes well for the future. In the face of the twofold challenge of both the enlargement, which must enable Europe to come to terms with itself, and the institutional reform, which must increase democracy and efficiency within the institutions, the European Union now, as it often does, stands at an important turning point in its history. The institutions, the Member States, and all of us, have to live up to this challenge, also in relation to the fears of public opinion in our own countries and to rediscover the inspiration, the ambition and the vision of the founding fathers of Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have discovered, from the social briefing, that the Chilean police have stormed offices belonging to the Chilean Communist Party, arresting several workers and wounding the Secretary-General herself. This has taken place a few days before the elections, which will be held on 16 December, and, according to the social briefing, the Chilean government itself has been shocked by this event. I would ask you, Madam President, to attempt to get to the bottom of this matter, and should this information prove to be true, to convey the objection of this Parliament. I find it so unacceptable that this should have happened that I should personally like to express my disapproval. ***

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, you said that you had not held a press conference. That appears to be the case, but can you confirm that you held a press briefing this morning, while the groups' press conferences were going on? Secondly, should this question be answered in the affirmative, I would very much like to ask the President of the Commission whether he thinks that press briefings of this sort are conducive to cooperation between Parliament and the Commission, when we should be the first to be informed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I shall keep it very brief. I am delighted that you have emphasised the ‘primacy of politics’. In the final analysis, this Parliament has grown from a paper tiger into a watchdog of democracy, and that is down to politics. In my view, communication and information are crucial in this connection. Information more so than communication. They are not the same. Communication is about bringing news. Information implies a dialogue with those to whom the information is directed. The dialogue must be open and objective, and should not degenerate into indoctrination and propaganda but should comprise communication and information. Sound information means that one has to present something of substance, that one has something to offer or something that one can pass on. It need not be perfect, but a dialogue is necessary to make any improvements. How will we deal with this? There are countless reports on this subject. I myself had the honour of being the author of one of the many that are stored in the dark recesses of this institution. There have been many reports, yet little has changed in the many years I have been in this Parliament. How will we tackle this? Could I make a suggestion, as we have tried all manner of things? Why do we not hold an open debate? You as representative of Parliament, along with those you select, you on behalf of Parliament along with the representatives of the media. Not with the intention to indoctrinate. I know how anxious the media is about propaganda, and with good reason. But simply an open dialogue to examine together how we can best serve the parliamentary, democratic culture, and hence Europe, a democratic Europe, for this is what is at stake in the final analysis.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, five year ago it was the Chechen war which concerned us on a daily basis. Thanks to pressure from this European Parliament, decisive diplomatic steps were then taken. The risk of a major conflagration was already colossal, and they were successful, at the time, in damping things down. But there was no follow up action. In the action programme on Russia, which has already been mentioned today, this specific region is omitted and, in the dramatic poverty which predominates there, extremists of course have an easy job of it. If we have an interest in a concept of security embracing all of Europe, we cannot be indifferent to the situation in the Caucasus. As anyone familiar with the region knows, it is more difficult than ever for measures to be taken in the area, and therefore in our resolution we prescribed only a verification mission, to begin with. As we know, there is no one at the present time who is prepared to go there. Nonetheless, the people there are in real need of humanitarian aid, and this must take priority. But even the extension of the mandate of the OSCE mission in terms of finance and personnel should be checked seriously, and I request Mr Kinnock to assign Mr Patten to report to us in the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the results of this verification, so that we can reach further conclusions. I consider this to be urgent, and I consider it to be our important contribution towards achieving stability in these regions. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel’s excellent report, which we have before us, on the European Commission communication, “Towards a European research area”, has aroused genuine interest in the House judging by the fact that almost 150 amendments have been tabled. Clearly, the development of research within the European Union is one of the keys to the future. The twenty-first century will be the century of knowledge and grey matter. Progress in communications effectively increases the rate of dissemination of knowledge, as the development of the Internet demonstrates, and is a powerful factor in promoting economic growth. In the broadest sense, then, research will, more than ever, be a fundamental element of future development. According to the figures made available by the Commission, Europe is definitely lagging behind the United States. Here are some examples of this: the average investment in research for the European Union as a whole is no more than 1.8% of GDP, as opposed to 2.8% in the United States; the number of European graduate students studying in the United States is twice that of American students in Europe. On this subject, the proposals of both the Commission and the Plooij-Van Gorsel report lead me to make a few observations. The first is that European investment in research is at least as important as the European research area. In the United States, there is rather less concern for semantics and more for practical action. The second observation is that approximately two thirds of research is undertaken by private companies and that the European Union must take this situation into consideration when focusing its resources. My third observation is that we must absolutely avoid anything which, from a distance or close up, looks like what has just been referred to as a master plan for European research. Research is, first and foremost, a matter for freedom and not for planning. This is all included in the Commission communication and the report by our fellow Member. There is, however, no prioritisation in the proposals, and this is something I would like to suggest. This prioritisation should focus primarily on researchers and businesses. As far as researchers are concerned, their standard of living throughout Europe must be enhanced. As far as businesses are concerned, research work must be encouraged. My conclusion is as follows: that we should first back the people involved, then business and, finally, that we should ensure that the European Union does not hinder the activities or the development of either party. This is what our approach must be. So the area ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President-in-Office, there happens to be a section of the Finnish government’s programme which refers to sources of taxation such as these. I would now like to ask you whether you have discussed matters in your role as representative of the Council with the Finnish government, so that new sources of taxation may be found and support be gained for this idea, which I understood you looked favourably upon, and whether the Council could summon together those still scattered powers that would enable new sources of taxation to be proposed. You mentioned the question of tax havens and money laundering in connection with this. Could you compile a new package of reforms from this on behalf of the Council?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against the Rothley report for the following reasons. I would in principle have been in favour of the Statute for Members, but I find it unacceptable that we have not succeeded in introducing a proper scheme for travel costs or in aligning the pensionable age with that which is customary in the Member States. I believe that we have undermined our credibility as a parliament. I myself have never had any problems, for example, with the fact that our Italian colleagues have more money than we do. We have to accept that a lot of work in the EU Member States is not uniformly remunerated. I believe that a statute of this kind only makes sense if the arrangements that have been adopted up to now in the guise of a travel scheme are appropriately modified by means of that statute. Another point is that I feel I should be subject to the same taxation as my constituents. We represent our constituents in our Member States, and I believe that our pensionable age and tax status should be the same as for those who elect us. Otherwise we are creating special rights for Members that are inappropriate, especially at a time when the cultural crisis means that ordinary citizens are struggling to make ends meet. That is why I voted against this report despite being in favour of the statute in principle. But I do not think it is acceptable, because it creates too many unjustifiable privileges, and because we have unfortunately not succeeded in changing the travel arrangements.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our starting point is a Commission proposal that took advantage of a temporary situation, an all-time low, to justify an untenable restrictive proposal. One year on, world market prices have risen by 90%. The risk of excessive costs no longer exists. In fact, costs are now minimal. We therefore have to ask ourselves why the Commission has not withdrawn this proposal which no longer has a raison d’être. It is two years since China decided to export its stockpiled cotton causing a record drop in world prices. I hope that the Commission does not attempt to maintain a proposal on the cotton system exploiting a decision by the Chinese Government, a decision which had no lasting effects. If the Commission simply wishes to cut production aid crucial for the most disadvantaged regions of the European Union, it would be better if it said so clearly. As part of an increasingly unbalanced common agricultural policy, the effects of these proposals, including the social effects, are wholly negative as earlier speakers explained. In my opinion, the merit of Mr Korakas’ report is that it corrects the Commission’s proposal. It also makes other very useful suggestions on effecting adjustment whilst taking account of some of the peculiarities of cotton. Firstly, it proposes adjusting the national guaranteed quantities in line with actual production. This will put and end to the anomalies of the aid system, in which costs increase as production decreases. Secondly – I must not be side-tracked by other matters – Mr Korakas’ report outlines a scheme for supporting producers’ organisations, and most importantly, a system to implement measures reducing the impact of cotton cultivation on the environment. The Commission dwells on the possible environmental problems of growing cotton, but fails to suggest solutions. I hope, Commissioner, that when finalising the legislative procedure, the Commission and the Council will include the amendments unanimously approved by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as previous speakers have requested.

Political group: GUE-NGL