GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to emphasise that any measure intended to promote road safety ought to be welcomed. That being the case, the intends to approve the Ferri report. Equally, we need to lay great emphasis on the fact that, looking to the future, the European Parliament is going to want to adopt a more comprehensive programme on road safety. We can no longer stand idly by when records show that every year 42,000 people are killed in road traffic accidents in Europe. “Road rage” is on the increase, which ought to make any policy maker aware that there is an urgent need for a number of measures to be drawn up and that these must be implemented in all Member States of the European Union with no concessions being made. In this connection, I would like to raise the idea of introducing a monthly traffic “barometer”. This traffic barometer would enable the competent authorities responsible for road safety in the European Union to conduct an evaluation of road safety in the Union on a monthly basis. In this way, the reasons for the lack of road safety could be investigated on a systematic basis and regular consultation would lead not only to action being taken but, most importantly of all, to policy makers becoming sensitive to the needs of road-users. Exchanging information and making road-users continuously aware of the enormous responsibility they carry when it comes to road safety will undoubtedly make a huge contribution to substantially reducing personal distress and the grief experienced by families. The Ferri report appeals to young people to be more conscious of road safety. No one doubts that young people must indeed be made aware of the dangers posed by road traffic. However, to my mind it is not just young people whom we need to direct this appeal at. In my view, all road-users, regardless of how old they are, need to be made continuously aware that only if they behave properly and courteously on the roads will it be possible to bring about a reduction in the tragically high number of road traffic victims. I was recently in the immediate vicinity when two drivers engaged in fisticuffs, as a result of which one of them died, and all because one was obstructing the other in traffic. These were two adults. When faced with dramas of this kind it makes me realise that we have an enormous problem before us. The Ferri report is a small step in the right direction. I would not wish my colleague Mr Ferri to take this to be a derogatory comment, I just mean to say that we still have a long way to go to reach the goal that we all have before us, notably to make our roads much safer places.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would also like to start by thanking the rapporteur for her excellent work. I would like to have seen the social partners at European level solving this issue, so that we would have been able to achieve a directive this way. The employers did not want this, however. That was the reason, Mr Crowley. I therefore thank the Commission for the fact that a good proposal has been tabled. This sector is becoming increasingly large, as many people have already pointed out. It is also a transboundary issue. In addition, the issue concerns an atypical form of work, which is why it is appropriate for us to adopt a directive establishing minimum requirements, especially bearing in mind enlargement. We must not create a Union only for capital – the Union must also be for its citizens. That is actually what it is all about. I heard Mrs Lynne say that this is also a problem for Sweden. As a Swedish Social Democrat, I disagree. This information must come from incorrect sources. We have agreements in Sweden in this area, which will continue to be applicable in the future. This is clear from Mrs van den Burg’s proposal. Naturally, the most important term of employment, pay, must be addressed. This is a case of discrimination regarding pay. This issue has already arisen in conjunction with the Part-time work Directive. I also dislike the idea of a six-week period, for this would allow shorter assignments, which only encourages cheating. The provisions should therefore apply from the first day. I also do not in fact like the idea of transition periods, but I accept them as a political necessity in order to get this through. Finally, I would like to say something about the members of the Swedish Moderate Party who will soon be speaking here. They are increasingly allying themselves with the Eurosceptic Tory Party. They talk all the time solely about the rights of companies and never about the rights of employees. Company rights at European level and employee rights at national level – that paves the way for social dumping. It is then no longer a matter of social cohesion. Instead, a society and a Europe of conflicts is created.

Political group: PSE
No, Mr President. The Commissioner asked me, in relation to the question which I asked him at the time, if there was any other option rather than convincing Senator Helms. I would like to tell the Commissioner that here there have been agreements which have clearly established two obligations on the part of both sides: the United States committed themselves to amending Title 4 of the law and not to apply the law to European undertakings. They have not amended Title 4 and – as you recognised in your reply, Commissioner – pressures are being applied on European companies. Therefore, I believe that the only language that means anything is hard facts. And the United States negotiated on the basis of the complaint which was presented to the GATT authorities. Therefore Commissioner, I would ask you to expand somewhat, on behalf of the Commission, with regard to your concerns. Thank you very much, Mr President, for your benevolence.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President Chirac has played down the negative reactions of many of the Members to the outcome of Nice, describing them as unrealistic and not pragmatic. In reality, it is the President who is being unrealistic if he thinks that it will be possible to enlarge the Union with such a Treaty. In my opinion, it is not more realistic to fight for one's own national prestige than to fight for the efficient functioning of the Union, and I would not say that huge numbers of European citizens came out to follow the naval battle fought by their leaders at Nice. My feeling is that the French Presidency's most serious error was to run the debate along the lines of a battle of powers between States – a mean, shameless fight over details – rather than as a relevant debate on the Union's policies. Terrified of jeopardising France's equal voting rights with Germany, the Presidency docilely allowed its proposals to extend qualified majority voting to 40 or so subjects to be knocked down to less than half this number. Yet even the pro-Europe- States did little to fight for its cause and, in the end, bowed before a disappointing compromise. As for the European Parliament, only the Commission defended its legitimacy and I therefore thank President Prodi and Commissioner Barnier for this, but they were alone in their endeavours and this was reflected in the final compromise. We truly hope this will be the last Intergovernmental Conference, considering that the Summit revealed a breakdown in Community solidarity. The real winners in this Conference were Blair and Aznar, the Euro-sceptics. It is their Europe, the Europe of the market and the right to veto which has won the battle. Our Europe, the Europe of democracy and a sustainable future, lost. There is one small ray of light although even that was mortgaged to the hilt by the French Presidency, and that is what is known as the post-Nice process. However, there are ambiguities which require urgent clarification. First of all, 2004 is too far away: we need to act sooner than that. We want a democratic process with the objective of a European Constitution to be defined by June and launched at the end of the year: the Charter took 8 months to draw up so a Constitution can be produced in less than 4 years. This is our next battle. I hope that, this time, the governments will fight with us rather than on the opposing side.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I want to thank Mr Danielsson for that answer. I am not in any way surprised about this clear distinction, which in itself is perfectly correct, when it comes to the EU’s areas of competence. I would nonetheless remind you that the new draft law in the Netherlands concerning medically assisted suicides is a source of serious concern in many countries. History has shown the danger of such a development. I would point out that this draft law in actual fact enables children of twelve years and over, with their parents’ permission, to be present at medically assisted suicides and also enables children of sixteen years and over to decide for themselves, without their parents’ permission, whether or not they wish to be present. This is an issue to which we cannot close our eyes in a Europe in which the Austria debate has raised questions concerning human dignity. I should nonetheless like to be told whether or not the issue of this law in the Netherlands in any way affects the debate on values within the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as many speakers have stated here already, the latest budget monitoring figures also show that the implementation of the Structural Fund programmes and payments made with regard to the programmes have progressed far too slowly. On the other hand, regional differences have also grown. It is therefore very clear that regional aid will be needed in the future too, as Mr Puerta suggested. Delays in structural policy were largely due in the early stages to the slow preparatory work undertaken by the Commission and the Member States. Now it is burdensome administration and complicated, rigid procedures that are causing the delays. These are also causing problems in countries that have kept to the timetable. The implementation thus far of both last year’s and this year’s budgets have led to a considerable increase in unpaid amounts of money. Our group is very worried about the possible negative impact that will have on next year’s budget and the Union’s structural policy both later on and in general. There should be compliance, however, with the N+2 rule, as it will help shore up implementation of the Structural Funds. Now we are compelled to ask, despite this communication and Mr Barnier’s fine words, what the Commission intends to do before this parliamentary term ends. What concrete measures are there, whereby practices associated with the Structural Funds can be clarified, simplified, and speeded up? This is a very tough question too because enlargement is just around the corner and we need to find remedies for these problems, with more in the way of results and less bureaucracy.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, why is there a deafening silence when it comes to Europe’s response to the mass-scale crimes in Algeria? This silence is in stark contrast with our condemnation of what else goes wrong in the world. The massacres in Algeria have not ceased. People continue to mysteriously disappear. Torture is still the order of the day. In the past year alone, two to three hundred people were killed each month in the most appalling way. If we take stock of ten years of excessive violence, the statistics are horrifying. One hundred and fifty-thousand people killed and another ten thousand people vanished. That is twice as many as under the Pinochet regime. President Buteflika made fine promises to curb violence, enter into dialogue and look into disappearances. But little of these promises has been translated into action. People still go unpunished. Barbarians who in the dead of night carry out monstrous slaughterings, continue to get off scot-free. Similarly, security troops who are guilty of wrong-doings are not being brought to justice. Plenty of reason, therefore, to take the Algerian authorities to task about this. But why, in fact, is this not being done? Is it because of the French business interests in the former colony? Are the Member States keeping quiet because they are hoping to secure some lucrative business deals themselves? Are we fearful about Algerian terrorism in our own countries? Or is it mainly the fear of further fanning the flames of Muslim fundamentalism? The most fundamental task of the state is to protect its people. It is shameful how the Algerian authorities do not come up to the mark in this respect. It is high time that the European Union took a stand for the sake of the Algerian population and put its own interests second. The violence has got to stop. An association agreement must be struck at the earliest opportunity, thus allowing us to intensify the political dialogue. My question to the Commissioner is the following: what is the latest? For we cannot keep quiet any longer.

Political group: ELDR
Could I briefly ask the Commissioner if he can be specific now on an issue many of us, including Mrs Hulthén, have raised with him before, that is the potential dangers of plastic inedibles which are given away with sweets and other things and which are not a foodstuff. They are a plastic, but they are not really designated as one or the other. Is he confident now that these substances are actually safe for children?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to address two points – first the political dimension and, secondly, the issue of cost-effectiveness and control by Parliament. As far as the political dimension is concerned, the Chernobyl disaster showed us that the use of nuclear energy involves risks beyond our control. No national budget can cope with such a calamity. At present, then, discussion is limited to the securing of the casing, which is urgently needed. This is only a fraction of the money needed to deal with the disaster as a whole. Neither the contamination of the soil and of the water underground, nor the harm done to the health of the population are capable of being dealt with within the Ukrainian budget, and it is in a situation like this that, for reasons beyond my understanding, aid from the EU runs out. This means that these problems will remain unresolved for generations to come. It might be added that no Western state budget – even that of a rich Western state – could cope with such a catastrophe without international aid. This report therefore meets with the unreserved support of us and regionalists. We do not believe, though, that this will be the last contribution towards overcoming the after-effects of Chernobyl, which will be a financial burden on East and West for generations. This report therefore invites the question: would it not be a practical preventive measure to at last bring in a European strategy for abandoning nuclear energy? The question also arises of whether the nuclear industry itself ought to be compelled to contribute to a fund to help deal with the disaster, for it, now as then, derives profit from East European nuclear energy. My second point is that it seems to us that the solution for implementation is not the European Development Bank, which guarantees neither control by Parliament nor affordable solutions, for Ukrainian firms are not considered when it comes to applying the resources. We therefore urge the Commission to avail itself of all sources of information, and not only the Development Bank, in order to supply Parliament with comprehensive and up to date information.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Foot and mouth disease inflicted a heavy toll in my own East of England constituency, and I had hoped that this European Parliament report would do justice to the losses suffered by farmers, the tourist industry and our whole community. Indeed the way the committee of inquiry conducted its work gave me such hope, that we could genuinely add to the lessons learnt, to combat and hopefully prevent any future outbreak. However, as other Members have indicated, the final report has been subject to amendments put forward by political groups in the Parliament, which suggest breaches of law which did not take place, even deliberately misreporting the numbers of animals killed. I had hoped this issue would be treated as more important than one subject to cheap political point-scoring. Not so. In these circumstances, I am recording my opposition to the final vote. My support remains for the original recommendations which will guide our future legislation, and ensure Europe plays a constructive role in tackling foot and mouth disease for the future. My constituents expect no less.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like many others, I want to thank Commissioner Byrne for his customary vigilance and also the French Minister for being here today. As an Englishman, I welcome the measures the French have taken. There is a general acknowledgement that BSE, which began as a British disease and today is being presented as a French crisis, is really a European disease – a European problem – and it must be tackled on that basis. There should not be any recriminations between the nation states or between different generations of government on this issue. We must tackle this. The Minister said that MBM was a low-cost foodstuff. It is not a low-cost food stuff if it helps to spread BSE and its human derivative. That is the essential problem here today. Many speakers have said that we need to extend the ban on meat-and-bone meal as a mammalian food stuff. The UK already bans it from all farm livestock. Our own Food Standards Agency will be pronouncing very soon on intra-species recycling, and I hope they will condemn it also. We need to take these precautions, and we need to take them quickly for the benefit of all the countries of Europe. Mr Byrne did not say very much today, as he was widely trailed to have done, about testing. I am glad that we are still looking at the extension of testing on an experimental basis. There are still doubts about the validity of tests, particularly on younger animals, and we have heard from other speakers about the huge size of the herd in Europe that would have to be tested even if old animals are to be taken out of the food chain. Lastly, we must make greater speed in urging the Council to act on our behalf. Everyone has said that and everyone knows it to be true. You must move. We have just heard that it took four years to agree a ban on SRMs in the food chain. We do not have another four years. We may not have another one year. We must take precautions now, not just on behalf of those of us who are concerned, but on behalf of the complacent minority of Member States as well. It is for their benefit that we do it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would be most grateful if we could lay Mrs Caroline Jackson’s resolution to rest in the Committee on the Environment; we could take care of it in three or four minutes. I would be most grateful if we do that right now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, having listened to the speeches by the two honourable Members on the crime being perpetrated in the Middle East against the Palestinian people, I totally agree. My problem is that, at some point – and I would suggest immediately – we need to stop making declarations and verbal accusations and do something and the first thing we need to do – and do at once – is to cut all funding from the European Union to Israel and all supply lines, because there appears to be a fairly dense network of supply lines between Israel and the countries and arms industries of the European Union. So an end to hypocrisy! We must do something to put an end to this heinous crime.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in drafting her report, my colleague, Mrs Joke Swiebel, has chosen a very exacting working method. She levels her criticisms regarding failures in the area of human rights directly at countries that are mentioned by name. The method provides a specific context for any evaluation of the human rights situation in Europe but anyone who employs such a method has an enormous responsibility for ensuring that the picture presented is an accurate one. Unfortunately, this has not entirely been the case here. Item 27 gives the reader the idea that there is no viable alternative to military service in Finland. In it, Finland and Greece are called on to recognise the right of conscientious objection to military service without restriction and without reference to any religious grounds. There has been such a right in existence in Finland, however, since 1931. Under the law at present anyone obliged to do military service can in practice choose a non-military form of service. Every year approximately 2 500 people exercise this right, which is 7% of those liable. Around 80% do their military service and a little over 10% are excused. The concern expressed in the report presumably refers to the fact that in Finland the period of time spent doing alternative, non-military service is twice as long as the minimum period of service. There is also concern regarding the fact that there is a total of 20 people in prison who refuse and are unwilling to fulfil their civic duties in any way. The reason why in Finland the period of time spent doing non-military service is longer is that those concerned are obliged to work eight hours a day, during a normal working week, whilst those doing military service are on duty 24 hours a day. I think that in the future it will be the task of the Finnish Parliament to get the balance right. The fact that the vast majority of young men in Finland do military service is not because there are no alternatives to it. In Finland we still remember all too well how important a conscripted army is for the country’s independence. During the Second World War, apart from London and Moscow, Helsinki was the only capital city of a country at war that was not occupied.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Article 12 proposes to call for a NEC (National Electoral Commission) meeting to be included on the agenda, as the representative of the Commission stated. I do not believe this would be appropriate. Since Laos is not a member of this Parliament, we could instead ask for the ASEAN assembly to be informed. This is not exactly ASEAN’s role, but at least Laos is a member of that body and we could take this matter to ASEAN, if the House agrees. Furthermore, the original text contains a mistake, Mr President. It talks about ‘the American journalist’. It should instead say ‘the American interpreter’, since that is what he was. (Parliament agreed to the presentation of the oral amendments) (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution on Uganda(3) (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Report (A5-0230/2003) by Mrs Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, on women in rural areas of the European Union in view of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (2002/2241(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a resolution by the European Parliament, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the safety of coaches (B5-0338/2003) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (A5-0230/2003)

Political group: PSE