GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, it is hugely important to the that we talk about the situation in Cambodia, and that this is done at this particular time, not only on account of the letter which UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has written to the government in Cambodia, asking it to take steps, at long last, to set up a special tribunal in order to call the leaders of the Khmer Rouge to account, but also because the Hun Sen regime, obviously not content with the attempted assassinations of the leader of the opposition, Mr Sam Raninsy, has now considered that his parliamentary immunity should be lifted to boot, so that he can simply be brought before the court. The international community has asked for justification for what is happening in Cambodia. After all, we approved the elections in Cambodia, in what was one of the biggest fiascos on the electoral observation front. Only this Parliament has emerged with some of its credit intact. I think that we, as a Parliament, even now have to assume our responsibility and speak out on the situation in Cambodia. (Parliament gave its assent) President. – The item on Cambodia is therefore added to the ‘Human Rights’ section. This renders the proposed item on Pinochet null and void. In addition, I have received some proposals for subjects to be included in the topical and urgent debate. Here we are not adding any more sub-items under the ‘Human Rights’ heading, we are introducing new items. There are three proposals: one proposal from the Confederal Group of the to add an item entitled, ‘Moratorium on the death penalty in the United States and the case of Betty Beets’; a second proposal from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to add an item entitled, ‘The Pinochet affair’; and a third from the Group of the for the inclusion of a new point, ‘Environmental disaster in the Danube’. In view of the time available given that, as you know, we have a Commission statement on the restructuring of business and that the current list already includes two items, we can only add two additional items. I shall take the proposal from the Confederal Group of the first. (Parliament rejected the proposal) President. – We will now take the proposal from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. Is there anyone to speak in favour of this proposal?

Political group: ELDR
We chose to vote in favour of Amendments Nos 76 and 19 and against, for example, Amendments Nos 5 and 7. That is because we believe that the definition of bathing water must be simple and clear and afford as little room for interpretation as possible. It is very unsatisfactory for legal certainty that the directive does not contain a simple and clear definition. Nor do we believe that an unmanageable number of bathing areas should be covered by the directive. Furthermore, we are opposed to extending the scope of the directive to include water activities in addition to bathing. That would place unreasonable demands upon the local authorities, which would then also have to take samples in connection with various sports, which might also have much longer seasons than the actual bathing season. Finally, we should like to see transitory contamination mentioned in the directive, but with a clear definition of what is meant by transitory contamination, together with a restriction upon the permitted period for such contamination. When the outcome of the vote was not as we had wished where these important points were concerned, we chose to vote against the proposal for a directive in the final vote.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, to follow on from the rapporteur’s closing words, both I and the Group are happy with the report and with the compromise which has been reached. I think that this report lays another important stone in the edifice of health protection for European workers, even if, unfortunately, it will still be far too long before we have common European protection standards. In this particular instance, the first proposal dates back to 1993. The noise directive was certainly no easy task, with the Council and Parliament taking up somewhat different positions. But the whole purpose of the conciliation procedure is to bring about agreement even so. Such agreement is, by its very nature, always a compromise but, as I said, we all have reason to be satisfied with this particular compromise. Objectively speaking, noise protection has been increased; the previous speaker explained the technical data and details. But what is important is that it is clear-cut; there are no grey areas or confusing discretionary powers when it comes to implementation. The employer’s obligation to provide hearing protectors, check they are effective and make sure people wear them is new. This sets out employers’ general duty of care without any room for misunderstanding. My group was also concerned that an allowance should be made for the music and entertainment industry when it comes to applying the directive. This is a welcome move for reasons of legal truth and legal clarity because it makes no sense to have to keep turning a blind eye to the fact that the directive applies to orchestra members in theory but is never applied in practice for reasons of comfort or on aesthetic grounds. It is therefore simply more honest to allow a transitional period here and let the individual Member States and social partners decide what they want to do themselves. I should just like to emphasise that, however pleasing it is on paper, this directive needs to be applied in practice. I am becoming more and more convinced that employee protection directives look very pretty on paper but that nobody actually wants to implement them. That may have something to do with economic developments, but it is precisely during hard times that we need to make sure that directives are implemented. I say that with one eye very firmly on the candidate countries because we must set a very clear example here too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the negotiations in Cancún should have been an opportunity to take a first step towards fairer trade. However, they were scuppered. The developing countries reversed the traditional power relations within the WTO. This is an essential point to consider politically. But who will really benefit from this failure? I note, for my part, that the developing countries have not gained anything specific in the application of the demands which they put on the Doha agenda. I imagine, like many here, that the United States is going to try and reinforce bilateralism for its own good, and I wonder how we Europeans are going to face the intensification of the trade war which threatens to ensue. On balance, this failure appears harmful, at least in the short term. In the public's eyes, however, it has had the effect of raising more than ever the question of adjusting the balance between the North and the South. This is the overall problem to which we must now try and find an answer. We need to see how to respond to it and with whom. This question is truly important because, for example, the interests of all the developing countries are not identical and their options with respect to the WTO do not yet appear to be very homogenous. In this context, which partner, which group can we count on in order to elaborate and engage in a strategy to relaunch the negotiations and reform the WTO? Elsewhere, and on another level, we have, of course, understood the Group of 21’s intention to combat external and internal public subsidies in the agricultural sector. Should we not fear that some countries, Commissioner, will seize the opportunity of the end of the peace clause to launch a legal attack on our CAP, in order to achieve their objectives without needing to honour any politically negotiated guarantees in return? However things stand after Cancún, the answers appear to be less obvious than the questions.

Political group: PSE
As the Commissioner is under pressure of time, I will forego my right to ask a supplementary. I appreciate the Commissioner giving me a very full and detailed response today on this and other questions. I just want to thank her for that.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Council has the power to make a different proposal from the one the Commission and Parliament had in mind after Parliament has agreed to it at second reading. It is a clever idea, therefore, to accept an amended proposal but not the legislative resolution at this stage. I am in any case unhappy with the proposals for four reasons. The first reason is that people with practical experience but without the required training are ruled out of these jobs from the outset. Secondly, the number of officials is reduced, and the number of work contracts with a worse legal position may increase to two thirds of the workforce. Thirdly, there is still no satisfactory arrangement for the protection of whistle-blowers, who want to bring malpractices within the organisation out into the open. Fourthly, even the pension problems remain unsolved. It is a bad thing that accusations of sexual harassment could potentially lead to punishment for those whose accusations come to nothing. A good thing is that, from now on, employees only need to announce their publications, without first requesting permission. Voting in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market took place so late that only one day remained for the tabling of amendments before the plenary session. This does not look like serious decision-making to me. - Resolution on the outcome of the European Council

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, President Prodi, I have noted with satisfaction that preparations in Ghent for the Laeken Summit also included a debate on the complex subject of ‘The Future of Europe’. You, Prime Minister, announced that the Laeken statement on this theme would not be a classic statement but an ambitious one that would acknowledge the EU's weaknesses and its citizens' fears and would clearly point out the way to be taken by the enlarged EU in the world of the future. I am convinced that the Belgian Presidency will do everything possible to bring about a resolution in December that really will live up to this high aspiration. In my judgment, there is an absolute need for the following to be taken into account when calling a Convention to prepare the next Inter-Governmental Conference: First, the balanced proportional composition of the Convention with representatives of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament analogous with the Convention to draft the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Secondly, members of the national parliaments and representatives of the acceding countries’ governments must be involved to the full in the Convention's work and have at least observer status. Thirdly, the composition of the Convention must ensure that the principle of political pluralism is guaranteed. Political debates need arguments on both sides which alone ensure that the debates come alive and are interesting, and only if the most diverse political forces from the Member States really work together can a politically sustainable result be achieved which will then enjoy popular support. Fourthly, there must be complete transparency in the Convention's work, both as regards the conduct of its debates and discussions and also public access to its documentation, which must be guaranteed by all means available. There is, fifthly, a need for a purposeful and structured dialogue with civil society, and I hope that the Presidency's proposals in this regard will find support among the various governments. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, just like the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, we consider the rapporteur to have done an excellent job in his report. It is a very critical report that indicates the sensitive areas when it comes to procurement and to cheating in connection with the reimbursement of travel expenses. We draw the same conclusion as the Group: no discharge should be granted. The criticism is too serious. Just as with the Eurostat story, we have been made aware of these problems through what is known as a whistle blower. If the Committee of the Regions’ financial controller had not contacted us, we should never have discovered how bad things were. We should just be grateful that there are EU employees willing to take the risks involved in pointing out what is wrong. These assertions are also well corroborated in OLAF’s report. If we were to grant discharge, we should also be doing so to the Committee of the Regions’ Secretary General. That is something we think cannot be done. It is the Secretary General against whom OLAF believes that a disciplinary procedure should be instituted, so it would be out of place. We shall vote against granting discharge to the Committee of the Regions. We think there is too much that has not been cleared up and that a still stronger desire should be shown to devise better procedures for the future.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the report by our Green colleague, Alex de Roo, will no doubt mark a milestone in the European Union's environmental legislation. Until now, we had an almost total legislative silence about the environmental damage caused by noise. Our parliaments lent a deaf ear, although this in no way reflected the real-life experience of the citizens of the Union. More than a quarter of them, one hundred million, believe they are the victims of noise and the economic repercussions of this noise in the environment oscillates at between EUR 10 and 40 billion. So we can only welcome the pioneering measures set out in this report. We do indeed need to introduce noise mapping. It is as necessary and salutary as the mapping of dangerous sites, which we now realise, all too late, is a vital measure. This information is useful only if it is given to the public quite transparently. It is meaningful only if it is constantly updated in terms of geography and choice of indicators. Lastly, identifying these noise nuisances will only be useful and effective if it is accompanied by penal and coercive measures against the noise-makers, be they civil, public or military. Over and above these practical imperatives, we can really only combat euro-noise today if we do so at European Community level. We therefore continue to call for common European standards. Noise respects no frontiers; noise penetrates every wall, resounds through every space. We therefore urged all our parliamentary colleagues to support this report and we welcome the outcome. Noise pollution reaches us in diffuse, sporadic and intangible ways; often it even forms part of our daily environment. Noise is not as black as oil, or as acrid as chemical waste; yet it is just as harmful, in condensed form. I hope therefore that the demands set out in this report will not be regarded simply as sound and fury but that the European Union will manage to make them resound for a long time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr President; I would like to start by stressing that the statement that Commissioner Verheugen has just made on the future prospects for the European Union is entirely in accord with the opinions of the majority of the in this House. I find this a valuable observation. From the point of view of regional and transport policy, Turkey cannot, in fact, be said to have made any progress whatever. What is particularly deserving of criticism in terms of regional policy is that decentralised structures have still not yet been set up. We, however, regard such structures as indispensable; we need them in order to be able to ensure the proper and comprehensible distribution of EU funds for regional support or cohesion policy. The Turks cannot be serious in constantly asking for more money when the administration is not in a position to disburse these funds in a proper and transparent manner. Where everything really is wrong in Turkey is in transport policy. In none of the transport sectors is anything being done towards alignment on the EU’s law and standards. Everywhere, there are still shocking deficiencies: in safety and air traffic control, on the railways, in the maritime sector, and in road transport. One particular deficiency in the road transport sector is in social regulations, one good example being those on driving and rest times, in the training of drivers, and especially, again, in safety. That is a pretty critical point; there are, for example, a lot of dangerous goods transported by road, and such deficits in road transport present dangers to transport not only within Turkey, but also, and to an increasing extent, across the European Union. There is an urgent need for action here. The biggest scandal, though – and it really is one – is the fact that Turkey is on the black list of states lacking any genuine port state control, in other words, that many of the ships that are death-traps and thus a ticking time bomb in our waters, sail under the Turkish flag. That is as unworthy of a candidate for accession as it is of any other country in the world, but the situation is particularly intolerable in the case of a candidate for accession to the European Union. Until such time as Turkey has in place a national programme to remedy all these defects, we have to have serious doubts about its willingness to start accepting our rules. None of these things are, of course, pre-accession criteria, but not one single point of these has been complied with either. All these things take time. This makes all the more incomprehensible the Turkish insistence, dating back years, on a date for the opening of accession negotiations. This does nobody any favours – whether the European Union or Turkey itself.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure that the Commissioner attends these events with a heavy heart, because he is responsible not just for the food chain and the feed chain but also the worst chain of all, the contamination chain. One of the problems we face in this House is that we often orate about how everything should be perfect without always ourselves being willing to seek the means to go with the ends: the means to allow us to have an effective FVO, which at the moment is overstretched and understaffed; the means to have a proper process of scrutiny whereby every Member State, great or small, whether its population is a few hundred thousand or many millions, takes equal precautions and provides equal information. That has not happened in some of the cases here and I appreciate the difficulties that the Commissioner faces as a result. In regard to the scandal about the presence of nitrofen in grains for organic chickens, we know from information provided between May and July that not all of the Member States were informed with express speed about what had happened. Our information is that in regard to contaminated pork – to pigs that had been fed with these appalling materials – four Member States had purchased and no doubt their citizens had consumed some of the contaminated pork before the process of control was effectively operating. The controls are now better and, as a result of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health being set up in February and the evidence it collates, we can now say that we have a rapid-alert system that ought to work. That is the Commissioner's responsibility, so we commend him on it. The question is whether the Member States are providing sufficient information. Can they be trusted to bring their own rogue operators under control? I do not know. I should like to hear from the Commissioner whether he believes the resources are there. Mr Bowis said earlier that all the institutions have been dilatory and slow in setting up EFSA. It is going to come into operation later than we had hoped. Is that one of the reasons why we are having to wait longer to get these positive lists of feed materials and the general hygiene rules which follow from the reforms we so enthusiastically greeted last year? I hope that the Commissioner can tell us that proper investigations are proceeding in all the Member States as to why organisations like Bioland could perpetrate the scandals they did.

Political group: PSE
I should like to thank Mrs Malliori for raising this issue and add to what she has said. May I ask the Commissioner specifically about how these energy drinks are marketed in combination with alcoholic products. For example, a growing trend, certainly in Scotland, has been the combination of the product Red Bull with vodka, which is exceedingly dangerous. This is of great concern to me, since Scotland has one of the highest rates of under-age drinking, that is to say drinking by 15 year olds and under, in the European Union. Could the Commissioner tell me whether the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs discussed the combination of energy drinks with alcoholic products and, if so, what research did it propose and what information did it think was needed?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank the Court of Auditors and its President very much for this valuable report. We are forced once again to observe that the Court of Auditors is very keenly critical of the way in which the Commission conducted itself during the previous budget year. There are such large areas of doubt and such major errors that, in practice, the Court of Auditors is giving the thumbs down to quite crucial areas of the EU budget. The problem is that it is difficult to judge whether the trend is for the better or for the worse. It would have been desirable if, as in previous years, the Court of Auditors had been able to quote a percentage figure for the funds it considers to have been wrongly expended. Now that we are no longer being given this percentage figure, it is difficult to decide whether the trend really is in the right direction, as it is often maintained to be. The Court of Auditors again sets out a general reservation concerning the accounting system itself, which is obviously the most serious point on which we have to adopt a position. This means that there are doubts hanging over a very great many of the figures. We do not know whether we can fully rely upon them. We have been promised thorough reform by 2005, but we have today heard again that the Court of Auditors doubts that it will be possible to implement this reform adequately by 2005. There is therefore still a danger of new scandals, for the Commission clearly has no general view of the way in which the budget is implemented. That is shown with all the clarity one could wish for by, in particular, the Eurostat scandal. I also intended to say a few words about the European Development Fund, for I am the rapporteur when it comes to discharging it of liability this year. It has emerged that funds from the European Development Fund have been misused by the same firms that are involved in the Eurostat scandal. Money from the European Development Fund has been used to finance contracts between Comesa (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) and CESD, the firm that defrauded Eurostat of at least EUR 3 million. The internal auditing service concludes that there is a large risk of errors having been made, of there having been double payments and of there being conflicts of interest and so on. The Directorate-General Development entered into a contract with this firm as recently as in April 2001, a contract valid for 33 months. I should like to ask the Commission whether this contract has now been terminated. One of the main proposals by the Court of Auditors regarding the European Development Fund is that this be incorporated into the ordinary budget. I am totally convinced that such a measure would facilitate reform and make it easier to obtain control in this area, in which a lot is at present unclear, especially when it comes, for example, to the control of direct budget aid to different countries.

Political group: GUE-NGL