GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the vast majority of United Kingdom citizens or indeed EU citizens were deeply shocked and dismayed at the recent events at BNFL. Let me quote BNFL's own words: 'At company level it has been recognised that in the mind of many stake holders quality and safety are inextricably linked. Failure to comply in one aspect of an accredited quality system has led to a major loss in confidence in BNFL overall.' That is from a management which is now aware of its shortcomings, a management that foolishly engaged in staff reductions, now reversed thank goodness. The highest standards are required of any nuclear installation. I have considerable sympathy for the workers at BNFL let down by a sloppy management. Their livelihoods were endangered. They will now speak out whenever they see evidence of lack of safety culture. I do not want to talk at this stage about the viability or wisdom of reprocessing nor about the economics of MOX. That is not under debate, although those matters should be debated in the UK and elsewhere. BNFL is now in for a very difficult period and deservedly. The main reason this is being raised in the European Parliament is to point out the lack of European harmonised standards in the nuclear industry. There are harmonised standards in almost every other aspect of European industry. The Euratom Treaty is deficient and that must be rectified so that we can have the sort of directive we need. We cannot really contemplate enlargement without some sort of acquis communautaire in the nuclear sector. The Commissioner says she does not feel it advisable to produce a communication. Please come to our committee Commissioner and we can discuss this further. I think one is needed in the near future indicating how we could achieve more harmonisation – of course not at the lowest standards in existence but at the most stringent. If you want public acceptance – and many of you do – of the nuclear industry, you have to ensure that. Commissioner you say that as far as new facilities are concerned, if there are to be any, you feel that there is a case. I really do not see the difference, and I urge you to reconsider what you have said this evening to come to our committee, look at this one case as an example of what we need for the public of Europe and for the workers in our nuclear plants.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like, on behalf of my group, to thank you warmly for your excellent report. I am sure it will provoke solid, but also controversial discussion, and so I would just like to take this opportunity to stimulate debate a little with a two-fold question. The current system will actually remain in force until the year 2006. Given that we are negotiating with the candidate countries with the aim of their acceding in 2004/2005, how then, can we make it clear to them that, even if they join under the current conditions, they cannot rely on our being able to continue the system, in other words, how are we going to make them understand that irrespective of what they sign up to now, they are going to have to adapt to an amended cohesion policy? Secondly, perhaps you could allay a little the fears which prevail across a good many regions by explaining to us how is it going to be possible for the regions which may receive less support after 2007, regardless of the ceiling we apply, not to lose support and solidarity at a moment’s notice? How can we make it possible for them – as has, in fact, been done hitherto using the phasing out method – to achieve the upturn gradually, without their being dropped from the system straightaway? You may be able to assuage quite a number of fears with your answer.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact that, some dozen years ago, the National League for Democracy gained an overwhelming election victory in Burma. Since then, though, the will of the people – of all ethnic groups, let it be emphasised – has been trodden underfoot. For a dozen years, the elected president has been under house arrest, citizens who prove to be disagreeably uncooperative have been thrown into jail, forced labour convicts have been mistreated, women have been abused and ethnic minorities harassed. Trafficking in drugs, small arms and human beings are the order of the day. For a dozen years, the international community has been pressing for a return to democracy – so far, unfortunately, in vain. Yet the EU troika's indication of its willingness to enter into discussions – without, though, tying these to concessions – is right and should be welcomed. The UN Special Envoy's efforts at getting dialogue started with the elected president and the SPDC and seeking out a starting point for democratic change are particularly deserving of support. That Razali Ismail's visit, originally scheduled for March, has been delayed, gives little cause for optimism. Those who lose by this are the people in the bitterly poor country, for whom things are constantly getting worse and of whose fate the democratic part of the world must not lose sight. That it will not is also guaranteed by the European-Burmese Office, funded by the European Union and run in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, which has experience of promoting development and democracy. This gives us hope for new impetus to perhaps take us a bit further forward, even if we will need staying power.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to start by saying that it is very difficult for me to get on with my work here in Strasbourg owing to the fact that for the second time now, my case of documents has failed to reach my office. I would like to thank all those involved in the budgetary procedure for their work, which had to be executed with very little room for manoeuvre and was intended to send out a message to all the citizens of Europe. We are able to do this as far as Category 3 is concerned, which relates to internal policies. The youth programme, the SOCRATES programme, the cultural programme and issues relating to women and equality all provide us with the opportunity to make clear to the citizens what we want to achieve. A mistake was made in the case of Category 3, that is to say, when the vote took place in the Committee on Budgets an amendment was adopted by a very slim majority which could cause considerable damage if it is not corrected. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities submitted a remark and a budget for the European Women’s Lobby in line A-3037, as it did the previous year, but the remark now states that this line is to be opened to all non-governmental organisations. May I remind you that we as a parliament have supported this umbrella organisation for European women’s organisations and have entrusted it with the task of implementing the plan of action agreed in Peking at non-governmental organisation level, and I think it would be disastrous if just any women’s organisation could have a share in this budget. That is why I would ask you all to correct the amendment again and to vote against Amendment No 443 and in favour of the amendment tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. We weighed the situation up very carefully and exercised great restraint as regards the amendments relating to gender mainstreaming and the question of firmly establishing equal opportunities in all European policies. I would particularly ask the rapporteur to take this into account and to support the position of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the amendment to the operating regulations of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is considered indispensable. First, due to enlargement and, secondly, due to the new trends being observed in young people, who are using legal substances, such as alcohol, and illegal substances simultaneously. According to the Commission proposal, the main tasks of the Centre are the collection, analysis and dissemination of transnational data on drug-related problems. I, however, consider it vital that the Centre should also proceed towards the evaluation of different national policies instead of merely supplying the data. Only this would give the Member States knowledge of the best and most efficient practices in this difficult sector. I consider the question of the representation of the European Parliament on the Centre's Management Board to be equally important, which is why I propose that two members of Parliament should be nominated as observers, who will regularly report back to the committee responsible. As far as the nomination of the director is concerned, the procedure should be the same as for other Community agencies, in other words a candidate should be proposed. The selection procedure should be transparent and should attract the interest of all potential candidates. I proposed amendments on all the foregoing which were accepted. To close, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive cooperation.

Political group: PSE
I have abstained from voting on the accession of the Czech Republic. I am of the opinion that the country has not yet fulfilled all the conditions required for it to be able to accede to the EU. The reunification of Europe is an opportunity of historic significance. It is founded upon a common system of law and upon reconciliation between Europe's peoples. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Czech Government has not, as yet, changed its stance on the expulsions and continued to affirm them, in the parliamentary resolution of 24 April 2002, as being ‘unquestionable, inviolable and unchangeable’. This makes it all the more welcome that the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, should, on 20 March 2003, state that the expulsion of Czechoslovakia's German population, and acts of violence against Germans even after the end of the war, were not acceptable from a present-day point of view. It should be added that society in both countries has seen many efforts made towards a final reconciliation. In the meantime, no change to the existing legal position has been either made or announced as a result of the President's statement. The attitude of the Czech Government and parliament is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and of respect for human rights and the rule of law, which characterises European integration. I would like to give voice to my personal hope that the imminent enlargement of the European Union will enable the Czech Government and parliament to reconsider their position, and that the necessary gestures and actions will follow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report we are discussing today deals with the results of the liberalisation of the air transport sector in the European Union, which was concluded in 1993. We have supported this liberalisation process so that bilateral barriers may be lifted, ownership restrictions changed, technical standards harmonised, and suitable safety standards established and so that the conditions of liberalisation may promote greater transparency with regard to how air transport development policy is framed and allow, above all, the inclusion of environmental considerations in production within the aeronautical industry, in tariff policy and in the management of air traffic. A key point raised by the rapporteur is the current situation in which, while the aviation industry is liberalised and operates in an open European market, the authorities which control the air space, the airports and the regulating bodies, as well as the companies providing services to the air transport sector, still operate from an excessively local point of view. The rapporteur also mentions, as an unresolved issue, the continued state presence, in certain cases, in the ownership of national airlines. Turning in particular to air traffic control, the development of a common system of air safety is a fine challenge for the future. We must not forget that European airspace is a mosaic made up of 15 sovereign Member States, which, for a variety of reasons, mainly military, find it difficult to relinquish part of their sovereignty in this area. To this end, we must concern ourselves with resolving the issue of the policy of privatising the operational bodies responsible for air traffic control. With regard to charges, we share the Commission’s opinion that the costs over which the airlines have no control – ground assistance charges, airport taxes and atmospheric costs – must be transparent and non-discriminatory. Turning to the Sterckx report, our contribution has concentrated on the environmental aspects related to it. Our main criticism centres on the fact that the Commission, in its overall analysis, is trying to treat environmental, safety and health aspects in the aeronautical sector as a separate debate, by means of a separate communication, when, in reality, the impact of these factors on the future of the industry is crucial. I would finally like to mention some basic points. Airlines’ pricing policy must include the external environmental costs of air transport. The regulation of slot allocation must be reviewed according to specific environmental criteria, taking account of noise and emissions into the atmosphere, and specific actions should be taken in order to strengthen intermodality with other trans-European networks, especially with railways, in light of the conclusions of the report on aviation and the global environment, which considers that more than 10% of European short-haul air traffic could change from air to rail.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Prets, I have listened quite carefully to what our Commissioner has said. I am sorry, but I did not really hear the answer to the clear and precise questions contained in this report. In paragraph 45, if I have understood it correctly, there is a question which is addressed directly to you, Commissioner, and that is whether or not you intend to send, on behalf of the Commission, a communication to the Council and to Parliament, which will relate specifically to a UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. If I have understood you correctly, you spoke about this question at length but I did not learn whether or not Parliament can expect a communication from you. If the answer is yes, can you tell me on what date, during the course of this year, you intend to send that communication? There is a great deal one could say about cultural diversity and its importance. This debate does not give us sufficient time. It is significant that we should be discussing this subject at 11.50 p.m., Harold Macmillan – the British Prime Minister and grandfather of a current Member here – who, over forty years ago, applied for British membership of the European Union, said that when discussing those things that are precious to a people, you do not sell the family silver. That clearly applies to cultural values. The rapporteur is therefore correct to state that cultural products and services should not conform to the normal free market of commercial and trade options. Can we trust our governments to preserve our national, European and regional cultures? In my own country where, one might say, foreign languages are no longer taught, where history has become simply a background to current affairs and where Shakespeare is apparently too difficult for English students, those who say 'Yes, we may trust our governments to conserve our cultures' would perhaps be foolish. The proposals that this should be agreed at international level are correct, but we should also address ourselves directly to our own peoples and our own students. We have a great deal to fear from internationalisation, particularly of the television media. I hope that Parliament will continue to make positive proposals which are accepted both by the Commission and the Council, but I await a specific reply from the Commissioner on the point I raised initially.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I reluctantly agree with what is now on the table. I wanted more and better proposals on a number of scores. Nevertheless, I have noticed that a number of important achievements have been made, and I would thank Commissioner Dimas for his responses. The regulation that is before us applies to all EU citizens. That is progress. I have noticed that it has not only been expanded in terms of scope, it has also been simplified. That too is progress. I gather that on paper, a clear distinction has been drawn between the exportability and non-exportability of cash benefits. Furthermore, I think that problems could well occur when the annexes are further detailed. I still regret the way in which, last time, Mrs Gillig and her Socialist colleagues refused even to bring this point to a vote in a democratic manner. I therefore fear that we will have problems when the annexes are fleshed out. There are major improvements in this regulation for frontier workers. I can see the legal implications of what has now been established. For example, certain events in a Member State must be treated in the same way by the country of residence as similar events that have taken place on their own territory. That is progress. I have also noticed that the position of the family members of frontier workers has, in fact, been turned round and that they now have rights too. In an annex, however, those self-same rights are being nullified, so the progress made in the regulation is invalidated in the annex. I have the feeling that we could have achieved more had we consulted all protocols, for example, in the field of tax levies and social premium levies. I know that the Council is against it, but we could have kept this all together. I can see that, in a number of respects, the Court of Justice’s judgments have been much more clearly incorporated into this regulation. I also gather that the Court’s health-care decrees have been assimilated effectively. I do have a problem, though, with the way in which outpatient care has been treated, in contrast with what the Court states. In addition, unemployment has been better highlighted, although to a lesser extent than I had expected. Third-country citizens are now included, but my report had already proposed that. I have recommended that my group should vote in favour, on the condition that I am given every opportunity of introducing improvements where possible when the introductory regulation is fleshed out and also in the annexes. I would like to thank the rapporteur most warmly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, taking the language question first, I am informed that everything is in order so far and available in all languages. I will now turn to the esteemed Mr Dell'Alba's comments and start by agreeing with him that this is a political issue, but then coming to a quite different conclusion. This is not only a political issue but also an ethical one, and of the greatest significance for the Fiori report. It had always been our opinion that the Fiori report should be considered together with both the Caudron reports. As we have just decided, Madam President, to begin the debate with the Commission and the Council at three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, there will be sufficient time in the morning to debate the Fiori report and the two Caudron reports. If that were not the case, then we too would have doubts about proceeding with everything on the agenda as it stands. Now, though, that the debate with the Council and the Commission on the international situation is to take place on Wednesday afternoon, we take the view that the Caudron and Fiori reports belong together. It is, though, an ethical and a political issue requiring an answer now, and so we would be very grateful if it could remain on the agenda. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Mann on this report, which makes an excellent contribution to defining a future strategy for employment and social policy in the European Union. Now that five years have passed since this strategy was launched, this is the right time to assess the experience, to evaluate its weak points and to try to provide responses that are both realistic and bold, to the emerging challenges that are common to the current and future Member States and bring them into line with the aims of the Lisbon strategy. The strategy for employment has undeniably contributed to reducing unemployment, but we are today facing a different scenario, with Europe's economy in a period of stagnation, a situation to which the Member States must pay particular attention. We must also focus on clear issues, on adopting global priorities in the medium term and on achieving results. One of these issues is that of active ageing as a response to the demographic challenge, whilst not forgetting young people and the least-favoured social groups. Recent history has shown that the greater the involvement of regional and local policies in policies adopted at national and at European level, the more the strategy for employment has to gain. The importance of the role of the social partners, civil society and non-governmental organisations in achieving the objective of full employment and of better jobs for all cannot be over-emphasised. The report rightly highlights the role of the small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. These have indeed been the driving force behind job creation in Europe. Consequently, measures promoting the creation and existence of SMEs will surely have a positive effect both on the quantity and quality of jobs created. I also wish to highlight and express my total agreement with the idea of cooperation between the various universities, in addition to there being a genuine interface between universities and businesses. Lastly, I shall refer to the principle of equal opportunities: a lasting increase in the general employment rate is only possible if the female employment rate is strongly improved, and this will require effective measures to square the demands of family and professional life.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Community policy of cooperation and development is designed to promote lasting development and economic expansion in the developing countries, as well as the latter’s integration into the world economy and the fight against poverty. If the obvious correlation is borne in mind between poverty and the absence of rights where reproduction and sexuality are concerned, achieving such an objective necessarily entails putting in place a Community tool designed to further policies and actions relating to health and to rights in connection with reproduction and sexuality. It is in fact very clear to me that one of the results of development is a lasting improvement in the health and well-being of populations. It is therefore a matter of urgency to provide support to the women of these countries, which account for 99% of the 600 000 women who die each year as a consequence of pregnancy, and, through modern family planning, to provide help and information to couples, so enabling them to decide freely and responsibly how many children they want. Each year, a third of pregnancies are in fact unwanted or unplanned. This situation leads women to have recourse to abortions carried out in dangerous conditions, and it causes as many as 78 000 deaths each year.

Political group: PSE