GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there is quite a gap between the euphoria expressed by some today and the view expressed by others, to the effect that this is a compromise balanced on a knife edge. If any way of characterising this result is to be found, then this is probably the most honest. The process concerning transparency and public access to documents has, of course, been conducted for a long time behind hermetically sealed doors. This is in itself a major problem because, in tackling such an essential area as public access to, and scrutiny of, documents – which is fundamental to our having democratically active citizens able to influence the decision-making process – it is crucial to involve people, partly in the debate as to how the rules are to be designed, and perhaps, in addition, to go so far as to listen to some of people’s objections. I think we have a result which, in some respects, can be lived with, which in other respects is good but which, on a number of points, is unfortunately a retrograde step in relation to the current situation which is, of course, the result partly of a number of rules, partly of the practice of the courts and partly of intervention by the ombudsman. One of the areas in which, in my view, there is a major problem is that of internal documents which are not clearly defined in this proposal and which can be kept secret if it is thought that publication will have a decisive influence on the decision-making process. All right, but is that not precisely what transparency is all about – enabling people to have a decisive influence on the decision-making process? I think it is a problem that Member States can demand that documents be classified and, in addition, decline to register them at all, without there being clear rules as to when and why the Solana documents, as they are called, are not generally exempt, but that the rules governing what may be exempt are so loose as to be largely meaningless. There is, of course, no doubt about the fact that these rules will be of decisive importance to the rules in all member States, but large parts of the rapporteurs’ presentation have been vague and it has been very difficult to get clear information about the whys and wherefores. I doubt if there is a single document that cannot be accessed under the current rules but which it will be possible to access under the rules now being discussed. I doubt if it will be possible to extract so much as one more document from the EU system than it is possible to extract today. I think the European Parliament has played a difficult role in this, and I think it is also transparently obvious that the European Parliament’s own interests have, from time to time, unfortunately overshadowed the public’s interests. By far the best thing about this proposal is that we nonetheless have a chance to look at the rules again in 2004, and I think we have some detailed and substantial work to do before then.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I think that today our thoughts should focus on the basics, which are the good fortune and responsibility of living in democratic States governed by the rule of law. In a democratic State governed by the rule of law, any political demand is acceptable and to be respected and the democratic confrontation of ideas is always to be welcomed; these are our standards, our very essence, our identifying mark, on which the whole idea of European integration is founded. By the same token, however, the democratic State governed by the rule of law rejects those who express their ideas through bloodshed. When faced with those who sow the seeds of terror, death and destruction in our societies, there is only one dialogue possible, the dialogue that arises from the implementation of the law. This is our guiding thought on this matter. I said that we are constructing, on the bases and principles of our legal systems in democratic States governed by the rule of law, a democratic Europe governed by the rule of law. We had a situation that was completely lacking in balance between progress in the field of security and progress in the field of freedom and justice. The three proposals debated respond, and it was about time, to a request from Europe’s citizens and to the clear political will, at the highest level, of the Heads of State and Government, which, as Mr Watson has clearly pointed out, runs from Vienna to Tampere, and has been strengthened since 11 September at the Extraordinary European Council in Brussels and in Ghent. These three methods also respond to the principles upon which Europe has been constructed. Firstly, cooperation and coordination, as seen in Eurojust, where we cooperate and coordinate in order to be more effective in the field of justice. Secondly, the mutual recognition on which the internal market is based, and this, as the Commissioner has said, a corollary of the confidence between States, which is the fundamental element of the European search and arrest warrant. Finally, harmonisation wherever this may be necessary and the need for harmonisation with regard to terrorism is obvious, because only six Member States had any legislation covering this area. Madam President, I trust, no, I am sure, that by voting for these reports with an overwhelming majority tomorrow, Parliament will be giving, as it always has, the political signal that, as responsible representatives of the citizens, we have the obligation to work on the construction of democratic States governed by the rule of law, in those countries in which we are fortunate enough to live.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening, giving an opinion that I share, a fellow Member described the proposal for the common fisheries policy put forward by Commissioner Fischler as cutting off your head to get rid of a migraine. Fisheries and shipbuilding, which are so closely linked, are matters of deep concern in many Member States, in regions of the European Union such as Galicia and in cities such as mine, Vigo, where shipbuilding and fishing are the source of employment and means of living for many families. In December 2000, a report from Parliament set out the threats to shipbuilding in Europe: crisis in the fisheries sector, flags of convenience in the merchant navy and the risks of ships registered in a Community country being built outside of Europe. This is all because we are incapable of standing up to a situation of unfair competition in the face of a reality of disloyalty and dumping, while we wait for the Commission and the Council to adopt courageous and firm decisions of great political significance. I think that the naval sector accepts and desires the European Union’s objectives: streamlining of the shipbuilding industry, an increase in productivity, an increase in the competitiveness of shipyards, improving the environment, which are objectives that can be achieved in a situation of transparency and equality, but not with the disadvantage of dumping and unfair competition. We therefore ask for a link to be established between the temporary defence mechanism and the decisions adopted by the WTO on measures undertaken by the Community against Korea, and therefore we also ask for the protection mechanism to be extended to sectors of the market such as gas carriers, ferries and roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) vessels, as the complaint made to the WTO also includes them, as well as container ships, oil and chemical tankers and natural gas tankers. To conclude: the Regulation should be adopted before it is too late and the shipyards have closed down because nothing can be done. What is worse is that if the European Union does not support shipbuilding through temporary investment, it may be giving an invitation to those who practise dumping and unfair competition to extend those practices to other sectors of the economy, such as the automotive industry and electronics. Both possibilities go against the transparency and freedom of competition that Europe and the European people want. Commissioner, let us not be too late. The migraine will disappear because we will have lost our heads.

Political group: PPE-DE
There is no point in locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Unfortunately this is all too true, but we must guard this stable door effectively now. Seveso and Bhopal are places where serious accidents have taken place. These accidents have led to measures which have, however, proved insufficient each time. And each time an enormous tragedy has ensued. In Enschede, it transpired that current Seveso legislation is inadequate. A fireworks factory that did not fall within the scope of the directive destroyed an entire housing estate. The human suffering was enormous, and the grief for the victims remains. Residents of this estate were unaware of the presence of the fireworks factory. Authorities were only aware to a very limited extent. It is therefore obvious that rules need to be tightened up. On behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I should like to call for four amendments. First of all, the threshold values must be lowered. This applies particularly to ammonium nitrate and pyrotechnic substances. Secondly, the duty to inform must be improved. Information should not be kept back on account of industrial secrets or the threat of terrorism. This is all too ridiculous. Thirdly, cooperation and coordination in Brussels must be improved, because we need to draw as many lessons as possible from near disasters. This is possible if we organise this through the European Commission and through Community institutions. Finally, and this is an important point which Mr Lisi broached as well, we need to be given an accurate definition of a safe distance. It is evident that dangerous undertakings do not belong in housing estates. A pro-active policy must be adopted in order to remove such enterprises from these estates, if possible with the help of European funds. And clarity should finally be reached about what exactly constitutes a safe distance. The European Commission is to lay down guidelines in this respect. To tighten up the rules is one thing, but to comply with them quite another. We could draft as many as rules we like, but if they are not implemented in common practice, then they will ultimately have little effect. The duty to communicate applies just as much to ourselves, the Commission and national authorities. Safety is not only a question of rules but indeed also of culture. It is a public task to promote this safety culture actively. Where safety is concerned, we should never take the soft option.

Political group: PSE
Unfortunately, the amendments I proposed to this report on potato starch were rejected by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Let me remind you that those amendments were aimed at creating a common organisation of the market in potatoes for human consumption, something that is particularly important for Portugal. As it now stands, the report only mentions the Commission proposal on starch and continues to undermine the position we support. The fact is that the potato starch support system is a significant burden on the Community budget, yet only benefits a few countries. That is why we consider it important to review this support immediately so as to ensure greater fairness in support for potato production and to assist the majority of potato producers, that is to say small producers and family farms. We have, therefore, not voted for this report. - Joint Resolution (B5-0263/2002) – Valencia

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have a great deal of sympathy for language teachers in Italy who do not have Italian nationality. As a citizen of a very small country, I am a great advocate of the free movement of workers and self-employed people and also of the freedom of establishment. As an old suffragette, I have spent 40 years on the barricades, fighting against all forms of discrimination, whether based on gender or on nationality. But the free movement of workers must not result in discrimination against nationals. Coming from a country whose active population is more than 50% non-Luxembourgeois, foreign residents or people who cross the border every day to work, I know what I am talking about. In my country, for secondary school teachers we have very strict and very hard recruitment competitions. We cannot, and I say this as a matter of principle, discriminate against nationals by making access to employment easier for non-nationals. This said, I hope that our debate will go some way to promoting an equitable solution for language teachers in Italy. I feel bound to say, however, that we could easily fill up Friday’s agenda, if we were to deal with all existing similar cases of discrimination in this Chamber, especially those based on gender. (The President cut the speaker off) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to thank Mrs Gill very much for all the work that she has put into this report. She has made it the essence of her work to give the taxpayer value for money and I would very much like to support her in this. One of the most controversial points, as is evident from this debate, is health care costs. I am really hoping to be able to persuade Mr Dover not to extend the health insurance scheme to former Members. What is so wrong with it? The costs may and Mrs Gill has already gone into detail on this point be limited now, but over the years these costs will of course increase enormously. But then that is the financial side of the matter. There is however also a matter of principle to consider, one that Mr Virrankoski has already touched upon. Until we have a Statute for Members, Members of the European Parliament will continue receiving the same salary as the Members of Parliament in their country of origin. The Court of Justice has decided that pensions and health insurance all fall under the heading of salary. I am not even in agreement with the present Members of Parliament receiving this health insurance because I think that it is a bonus on top of salary. But now to extend this bonus is really unacceptable, it is simply old-fashioned grubbing about in the European cashbox and that we must not do. Once we have a European Statute, it will be a different matter and then we can talk about it again. Until that time there is simply no question of us being able to assent to it. Mr President, since we are talking of waste, the city of Strasbourg suddenly comes to mind. Which brings me to the fact that last time, during the voting on the calendar of meetings, we took the democratic decision in this place that next year there will be only 10 sessions in Strasbourg. Now I know perfectly well that a whole box of tricks is going to be opened up to ensure that it will again be 11 or 12, but this democratic decision that only 10 sessions have been scheduled continues to exist until that time. I therefore propose that tomorrow the President or the rapporteur actually corrects recital G. It must be stated under G that next year there are not 11 sessions scheduled here in Strasbourg but 10, as decided by this plenary.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I voted for this recommendation because I believe that the common position as amended is a great improvement on the Commission’s original proposal. I fully subscribe to the strong wish expressed by the European institutions: the future European Food Safety Authority must be set up very soon and be operative as from the beginning of 2002. With that in mind, I agree with the rapporteur in wanting to see a text adopted to which the Council is likely to agree, so as to avoid a conciliation procedure, which always takes too long. The European Food Safety Authority will be strong and will, I hope, help us counter any food-related risks throughout the European Union. The Member States will continue to be responsible for monitoring and checks, while risk management and the rapid alert system will remain in the remit of the European Commission. Finally, I am in favour of adopting criteria for selecting the best location, in the general interest, for the European Food Safety Authority: I believe that the town of Lille fully satisfies the conditions laid down in the recommendation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, for us in Greece, the textile sector is particularly important, both for our industry and for the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the Palko clothing factory closed recently, turning hundreds of workers out into the street. In the face of this worrying picture, there are a further two elements which, I think, add to our concerns. First, we have what is, of course, an unavoidable reduction in duty from the end of 2004, beginning of 2005, on third country imports and, secondly, we have the perennial problem of third countries, especially Pakistan and the countries of the Far East, giving their textile industries visible or invisible subsidies. Obviously, this situation needs to be addressed. I shall refer, by way of example, to four areas of action. First, an observatory needs to be set up on our part so that we can monitor third country subsidies and report them both to the World Trade Organisation and wherever else necessary. Secondly, a systematic effort must be made for our quality products to penetrate third countries, by dealing with the various ways this effort is being circumvented by third countries. Thirdly, we need to turn our attention to imitation products. A proposal has already been submitted for a label which should be adopted on our part. Other proposals can also be adopted, but the most important thing is for us to agree on the objective and, fourthly, given that this sector is important for employment, I think that the European Union should use European Commission programmes to help reinforce the sector. This can be done both through the community support framework and outside the community support framework, especially in the field of research and technology and innovation so that we can reinforce the sector as regards competitiveness, which is the key word. I think that the Commissioner is moving in the right direction, but we all need to urge him to step up his efforts so that we can address the huge problem that we appear to face.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, since rapporteur Lisi has already given us an excellent explanation of the compromise, I would simply like to deal in my address with a few rumours or arguments. Some Member States have recently been having doubts about the compromise, thinking it places too heavy a burden on the airlines. But that cannot be the case at all. The European Parliament has clearly reduced the rates of compensation in the airlines’ favour. The European Parliament has introduced clear rules for cases of force majeure so that airlines do not have to act if they are not responsible for the circumstances leading to a cancellation or overbooking. The Parliament has even put back the entry into force for 12 months because we take the airlines’ particular and difficult economic situation seriously. So these entire arrangements will not come into force until 2005. If the transport industry, be it the tourism sector or some other one, is now voicing doubts about this compromise, then I have to say that it is more than unfair and not at all acceptable. Many governments need to think whether they want to risk being shown by us as a Parliament to be clearly hostile to the consumer if they take this line in the Council. European elections are looming, should the Council wish to take this subject up. May I make one further remark in conclusion? The budget airlines, who did not take any of this at all seriously at first, are now coming and saying that these levels of compensation are far too high. If a budget airline offers a flight for EUR 50, then it is still obliged to make the flight, despite the low price. Because the rights of the citizen who wants to go somewhere at a particular time, be it for business or tourism, have been violated and he must be compensated if he is left standing or can only fly a day later. Even budget airlines must compensate their passengers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has indeed been a long, hard road. I welcome the outcome of the conciliation talks and I should particularly like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Corbey, for her excellent work and understanding of the issues. As an Irish Member, I believe we have benefited from what has been known as ‘the Irish amendment’. It seems a long time since I tabled an amendment for a derogation – not from the targets, but from the timetable – for Ireland, Greece and Portugal and I thank colleagues for their understanding. We have to get the balance right between ambition and realism when it comes to the matters before us. I cannot speak for Greece or Portugal – their own Members will do that – but my own country certainly does not have an infrastructure in place to be able to meet the targets within the timetable that was required of other countries, although our Danish colleague has suggested that it is not ambitious enough. This is a balance which I really welcome. There is nothing to stop others being more ambitious in achieving delivery. I thank you sincerely for your understanding of the Irish position on this issue. As an island nation, Ireland imports 80% of its packaging material and has a very small indigenous recycling possibility; we have a scattered population. Demographics, infrastructure, size and isolation make it very difficult for Ireland to meet the same targets and deadlines as other countries. We were way behind when this started and over the last five years have almost caught up. The extra time we have now been given will hopefully allow us not to look for special treatment after 2011, and that has to be our ambition as a country. We in Ireland must achieve these targets in terms of managing our packaging waste and waste in general. At the moment we depend too heavily on exporting our waste, because we do not have the infrastructure in place to do so locally, despite a great catch-up over recent years. The recovery issue and the judgment of the European Court of Justice really do not impact on Ireland as we have no recovery or incineration facilities at the moment and will not have for some time to come. No doubt there will be an appeal, but I support that for those countries for which it is relevant. Again my thanks go to the rapporteur and to all colleagues for their particular understanding. I welcome what is before us here this evening.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would just like to say that the case brought up by Mr Salafranca is unquestionably a serious one, and that his proposal is one worthy of support, but not at the expense of the case of political prisoners in Djibouti, who are sick, have been left untreated and are detained in utterly inhuman conditions for a very long time now. I believe that in this matter a great deal is expected of the European Parliament, and we would be giving out quite the wrong signal if we were to strike this topic from our debate.

Political group: GUE-NGL