GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I voted in favour of this report. We still remember the terrible disasters that befell certain factories, particularly the one in Toulouse. In view of these accidents, it would be premature to seek to call into question legislation which has been in existence for three years. On the contrary, it would be advisable to improve safety measures. Our priority is to be able to combine industrial development with increased safety. A Europe without factories would surely be inconceivable, would it not? The zero-risk option does not exist, and to insist that it does would be to tell a lie. The objective is therefore to be prepared for the unexpected. In order to do this, the idea of information is of supreme importance, particularly information regarding the courses of action to be followed in the event of an explosion. This is absolutely fundamental if in future we are to avoid even more serious damage. We must not frighten people. Being prepared for the unexpected also means doing everything we can to avoid it. Therefore, the new requirements being sought must be based on a proper evaluation of the risks, in accordance with criteria defined at Community level, the definition of the responsibilities of those involved in the undertaking, both employees and management, including the obligation to provide adequate training, the implementation of security-management systems with on-site testing, and the tightening-up of controls. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, first of all, I, too, should like to thank Mr Mulder for the work he has done with such great balance and commitment that it has achieved a substantial consensus within the Committee on Budgets. The 2004 budget is very much a continuation of the 2003 structure. The main objective for next year is to provide sufficient funds and a sufficiently well-structured system to cope with not only the challenge of enlargement but also the new responsibilities that an enlarged Europe will have to take on on the world stage. I should like to focus on just a few points, because many things have already been said. I would mention, in particular, the support that Parliament is reserving for the reconstruction effort in Iraq, especially after the recent UN vote; the confirmation of its commitment to Afghanistan and the reaffirmation that ongoing programmes must be supported and maintained, despite the current difficulties; and the principle whereby aid to developing countries should be precisely targeted, especially in the case of priority objectives such as combating poverty. I therefore feel it is essential to ensure that the Tacis, LRRD and MEDA programmes are preserved, and I see a need for a new instrument to update the policy of proximity and to put it into practice. Lastly, I would mention the protection and promotion of children, especially those who are victims of wars and natural disasters. Finally, I should also like to thank the Commission, which has, once again, been extremely open to working with the Committee on Budgets, and I hope that, by next year, we will have succeeded in this challenge.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our experience following the quantum leap in the mass media, especially television, is increasing daily. I am sure you have all witnessed in your countries, as I have witnessed in mine, the boom in cheap ‘big brother’ type television programmes in which people agree to be imprisoned, for want of a better word, while viewers are invited to peep through the keyhole, waiting for something titillating to happen, usually – to be frank – a sex scene, or for something unexpected or interesting to happen. But, at the same time, this sort of programme encourages viewers – especially young viewers – to look on the people playing this sort of lottery, betting body and soul in the hope of winning money at the expense of the others, as role models. These programmes are objectionable and absurd but we cannot attack them through legislation or administrative intervention. As other speakers have said, technical rules do no good, nor does informing and educating children, because forbidden fruit does, of course, taste sweeter. None of this is enough especially, Commissioner, as everyone will be able to access this sort of programme on the Internet sooner or later. I think we need some sort of European legislation and regulations with more teeth than we have at present. I do not have a great deal of faith in self-regulation because competition lives by its own – very powerful – rules. However, it would be no bad thing if we could come up with some sort of more binding code of conduct than we have at present. If we were to give parents and consumers the right to lay siege to the producers of these cheap programmes, it would, perhaps, provide some small counterweight to competition. And, of course, we could look at the more technical question of watersheds to draw a dividing line between when children watch television and their bedtime and when these programmes go out. However, even with all this, unless we come up with something more original and imaginative, I shall persist in my pessimism as to the future and the success of this sort of programme.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will be very brief. I simply want to say that, when the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy received Mr Dary’s report, after a detailed examination of the problems facing the banana industry, we came to the conclusion in our committee that the solution proposed by Mr Dary met the absolutely fundamental conditions for its success. Firstly, with regard to the international obligations of the European Union, not only towards the ACP countries, but also within the World Trade Organisation. As you know, the European Union has been condemned for its regime of granting licences for this product, but has maintained the viability of the quota regime proposed by Mr Dary. In fact, in the Commission’s current negotiations, it appears that the main suppliers would prefer this system. On the other hand, this is the system which best defends the principle of multifunctionality of agriculture, protects the European Union producers, also protects the developing countries, with whom we have a very special relationship, is sensitive to the protection of fundamental social regulations and the protection of the environment and, lastly, it is the system which best obeys the principle of consumer protection. For all these reasons, my committee voted in favour of Mr Dary’s draft report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a representative of the Group of the European People’s Party and , which is Christian Democratic in character, I wish to express our deep and sincere sympathy with all the victims of the terrible earthquake in Turkey. We would also express our sympathy to the Turkish Government and to everyone in Turkey. What has happened shows that, despite all the conflicts of political opinion, the most important thing is still life itself. It is important for the Turkish authorities and the EU to do everything possible to get aid through as soon as possible. The events in Turkey highlight the need, at international level too, for some form of emergency force to respond to appalling natural disasters of this kind. The fact is that the international TV companies are on the scene much more quickly than those of us from the European Union and those from various aid organisations. Let us work to ensure that aid gets through more quickly. In conclusion, I would just mention the fact that, the last time something similar happened in Turkey, there proved to be some coming together of Greeks and Turks.

Political group: PPE-DE
You mentioned the Cotonou Agreement. Are you aware that the Cotonou Agreement also expresses a commitment to undertaking impact studies which might affect non-LDC countries as well as to have consultation? Neither of those two things has happened. It is not good enough to have consultation after the events. Are you aware that apart from sugar producers in Europe, concerns are being expressed, especially by countries that are commodity-dependent – particularly in the Caribbean – on sugar, bananas and rice, as you have mentioned?

Political group: PSE
That was such a comprehensive reply that I cannot think of a supplementary question, so I will not ask one.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I just wanted to point out what repercussions a split vote would have. Normally, it is customary in parliamentary circles to vote on the most in-depth proposal first and then to move on to the less in-depth. Due to this split vote, we are now voting on the least in-depth first and are working our way up to the most in-depth. Since I am fairly new to this Parliament, I do not know how to deal with this, but I would at least recommend anyone who cares about the environment and who is in favour of the polluter pays principle, to vote for both split components. (Parliament approved the common position (as amended)) *** Recommendation for second reading (A5-0040/2000), on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community [111287/1/1999 – C5-0323/1999 – 1998/0097(COD)] (Rapporteur: Mr Piecyk) (Parliament approved the common position (as amended)) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE – Recommendation for second reading of the Fernández Martín report (A5-0048/2000)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission’s and the ECB’s convergence report deals not only with the Greek, but also with the Swedish, convergence programme. So too does Mr Goebbels’ report, even if the part about Sweden is limited. The Swedish economy is doing well – very well. Mr Goebbels also points this out. In common with Mr Karas and Mrs Randzio-Plath, he also issues a reminder that the EU would be that much stronger if all the Member States were to participate in EMU. This is a timely reminder of something which is self-evidently the case. If one is going to join the EU, one should not do so by halves. Even if the economies of Great Britain, Denmark and Sweden are going well, it must be clearly pointed out, as it was by Commissioner Solbes Mira in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, that, if the spirit of the Treaty is to be complied with, no Member State can, in the long term, place itself outside so strategic an area of cooperation as the common currency. This could have been brought out more clearly in the report. The euro has provided greater stability. This has benefited companies, especially small companies. Price competition has increased, and there has been greater transparency. The euro is not weak. Instead, it is the dollar which is extremely strong. Allow me to remind those countries outside the euro zone that there is a danger of their influence declining further. Last week, we learned that France’s prime minister wants to see a Euro 11 – soon a Euro 12 – with more influence and power when it comes to economic and financial policy. At present, the economy is on the way up in Europe, but the clouds are gathering – in the United States and in Europe. You do not buy an umbrella once it has begun to rain. Instead, you buy an umbrella when the sun is shining so that you are prepared for when the rain comes. The euro provides Europe with economic stability and competitiveness. There are very strong economic and moral reasons why Sweden should join EMU. Sweden should also have an obligation to help increase Europe’s economic competitiveness. I should therefore have liked to have seen my home country, Sweden, being able to join with Greece today.

Political group: ELDR
When I tabled this question two months ago I did not know that, coincidentally, there would be a debate this afternoon on immigration and asylum. I would like to thank the President-in-Office for that reply. I do not underestimate the importance of the exchange of best practice on national integration policies and I pay tribute to the measures put in place in Denmark under his stewardship. However, we still do not have this directive. What kind of timetable is there to get this directive agreed? It will give the estimated 20 million people who are legally long-term residents in the European Union the legal framework of rights and obligations that will help to integrate them. Is it not ludicrous to keep calling for mobility of labour to boost economic growth while preventing those 20 million from going to work in another Member State? They are a rather obvious category of people who might be inclined to do that. Is there a timetable, is there a target date for getting this directive agreed?

Political group: ELDR
The concept of ‘European citizenship’ must not be an exclusively legal argument. Dialogue between the citizens and the European institutions must be enhanced and the intermediate structures linking citizens with the European Union and its institutions - ‘the media, national parliaments’, etc... must be strengthened. To this end I would emphasise the need to continue to support town-‘twinning’ schemes between the various peoples of the Union given the important role that these have in promoting civic identity and mutual understanding between the peoples of Europe. It is important to ensure that adequate and sustainable funding is provided to support twinning. - Frahm report (A5-0372/2003)

Political group: PSE
I was rapporteur for one of the reports on the Erika I package. The Erika accident took place on 19 December 1999. I believe that the Commission did its work perfectly, because in March 2000 it presented us with this first package of measures. Parliament worked on it and, with more delay than we would have liked, we finally achieved a proposal in December 2000 – a year after the Erika accident – on which we had reached consensus with the then representative of the Council, the French Transport Minister. The day after that Council, in Parliament, as a result of the actions of the Group of the European People’s Party , the whole agreement we had reached became deadlocked, and the first Erika package was not approved until a year later (December 2001). And the worst thing of all is that it was not just the Group of the European People’s Party that held up this Erika I package, but also the Council, which delayed its common position with regard to double hulls until August 2001. While we are facing another disaster, which took place in November 2002 – three years after the Erika accident – the Council and the Member States have still not brought the measures in the Erika I and Erika II packages into force. Hence my question: why are the appropriate decisions not taken so that we do not have to suffer another such disaster, and so that the adoption of measures is speeded up with the efficiency that this case demands?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, we realise that EU targeted sanctions against the Burmese military regime – the State Peace and Development Council – require review and renewal before 29 April 2004. When the Council initially imposed sanctions, they agreed to monitor closely the further evolution of the situation in Burma and reaffirmed its readiness to react proportionately to future developments. The situation, in our view, has not substantially improved. Aung San Suu Kyi, imprisoned until September 2003, is now again under house arrest where she remains without access to telephone communication and where visitors require government permission to see her. There are 1 350 prisoners, many members of the National League for Democracy in jail in Burma. Last week, the United Nations Special Envoy to Burma, Rosali Ishmael, had meetings with both Aung San Suu Kyi and General Kin-Yun, Burma's authoritarian leader. When he returned, he stated that the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained NLD leaders was an essential pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue with the regime. The United Nations Special Rapporteur said that the most urgent requirements today are for the lifting of remaining restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of movement, information assembly and association, the repeal of security legislation and the opening and re-opening of all political party offices throughout the country. There are numerous human rights abuses in Burma: forced labour, persecution of dissidents, conscription of child soldiers, etc. We call for Aung San Suu Kyi and all those detained or put under house arrest to be immediately and unconditionally released, along with all other political prisoners, and for the NLD offices closed in May 2003 to be reopened. We also insist that the authoritarian government release its grip on power and that the results of the last election are allowed to stand. We demand that sanctions be strengthened if this does not happen. We equally insist that Burma should not attend the ASEM meeting scheduled for April 2004 in the Republic of Ireland, and that the presidency should refuse to issue the relevant visas.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are discussing a Commission proposal on the reform of the COM on flax and hemp in two respects. Firstly, the Commission is explaining the need for the reform in terms of an increase in budgetary cost. I do not believe that that is the best way to try to justify the need for a reform, although I agree that it is needed. Amongst the objectives which this reform should have, as well as simplifying and updating the regulations, is also improving control, which is something we always forget about later on. The Commission proposal offers a good, coherent and precise analysis of the sector in the European Union. It explains the importance of flax and hemp production from both an economic and an ecological point of view. However, it seems to me that the Commission’s considerations with regard to hemp fibre and short-fibre flax are not very realistic, either as regards its future viability or its range of uses. However, the thing that seems least appropriate to me is the proposal on processing aid. In this case I would like to draw your attention to the increasing number of uses for this type of fibre, as several speakers have already pointed out. If we were to follow that route, the European Union, which already falls short in terms of using this type of fibre, would cease to use it altogether, at least in some countries. Today I read in one of my country’s newspapers that one of the autonomous regions has abandoned more than 95% of its cultivation of short-fibre flax. These were the words of the local Minister for Agriculture for that region. This type of situation will become inevitable if this amendment is put into practice. With regard to payment for processing, I cannot agree with the Commission’s proposal, either in terms of the distinction between short- and long-fibre flax or its proposals for hemp. It appears to me that they have not made any precise calculation to justify the different amounts for the premiums. Neither does there appear to be any precise calculation to justify the maximum guaranteed quantities, either at European level or on the different national levels. Consequently, these quantities are going to hinder development in the European Union with regard to short- and long-fibre flax and hemp. In addition, it also seems to me to be problematic to apply these regulations during this, the 2000-2001 season, since we are already at a late stage. I believe that Mrs Schierhuber’s proposal is a balanced one. It has been approved by a majority in the Committee on Agriculture and we should adopt it as a basic regulation.

Political group: PPE-DE
First of all, I should like to thank the three rapporteurs for the volume of work they have carried out. I should particularly like to congratulate Mr Van Dam on the important work he has done. The St. Gothard tunnel accident made it clear that common European legislation is very necessary and urgently required so that tough action can be taken against illegally employed drivers who do not carry the necessary paperwork. However, whether attestations will be sufficient will become evident from the evaluation. I should also like to congratulate Mr Grosch on his report. This too stresses the need for prescribing uniform requirements for drivers, because this is a typically transnational profession. In the final analysis, what matters is safety and fair competition on the roads and, in this light, it is of the utmost importance for each driver to have had adequate training before they use the public roads, and for them to be able to specialise and receive continuous training, and for the requirements to be equivalent in all Member States and accession countries. This will also afford the profession more standing, which is very important, and will also make it more appealing. For the Liberals, it is essential for what has been learnt also to be tested properly by an independent body. However, a certain degree of flexibility and pragmatism will be required. The duration of the training, as proposed by the Commission, is unnecessarily long and would have an inhibiting effect. Furthermore, a proper exam will provide far more certainty that the driver has actually learnt what he thinks he has learnt. However, the flexibility which Mr Bradbourn and others would like to build in is excessive in our view. We are unable to back the majority of the amendments because they would, in fact, render the regulation superfluous and the exam ineffective, and we should thus be overshooting our target.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the end report which is on the table, and which has also been well amended. I should like to make a somewhat political remark: she belongs to a group that regularly calls for civil disobedience in a great number of spheres, but I notice that she is now very law-abiding. As soon as an entrepreneur does something wrong – something that is not quite compatible with the rules – a punishment must be imposed immediately. I think that that is a good discussion in itself: it is possible to discuss even with the European left on which issues we should or should not follow the government. I digress. I agree with the rapporteur that it is right that the multi-annual guidance programmes be laid to rest. Four generations of MAGPs have failed to produce anything; this is not the way to approach the common fisheries policy. Indeed, I have opposed this approach ever since I joined Parliament, and I am pleased that the Commission recognises that, and also the rapporteur. In addition, we must not stand still. It is clear that there is an excess in capacity, and something must be done about it. There are more means than just reducing the size of a fleet, however. By this I mean the use of ‘days at sea’: we can limit the number of days spent at sea. In addition, quotas can be better monitored by means of the joint management of these by producer organisations. There are a good few possibilities, and, indeed, I wish to ask in this regard that the Commission maximise the use of the existing possibilities in its policy before resorting to further new ones. At the same time, however, I should like to pledge my support for the Commission’s policy in this matter, as it is important that we establish a better grip on fleet size, possibly even with regard to going over from smaller to larger vessels in our fleets. With larger vessels it is often possible to put out to sea on more days, and sometimes that does not result in greater tonnage, but does lead to more actual fishing. In this regard, that very instrument – days at sea – coupled with a reduction in the capacity of fleets, could indeed be a very effective instrument for achieving a very productive approach, and also sustainable fishing. Once again, our group can endorse the general thrust of this report, including after the amendments, and I await the Commissioner’s response with interest.

Political group: PPE-DE