GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, for years, national and local governments heavily underestimated the effects of noise in the workplace and at home. The fact that people became sleepless and stressed out and that their hearing became damaged, seemed to take second place to economic growth. Now that traffic noise, especially, is ever increasing, far-reaching measures have become inevitable. The largest airports are located in densely populated areas and their environments are becoming less and less inhabitable. It is important that, in those areas, everyone is guaranteed at least eight hours of peace and quiet at night and that governments no longer allow hours to be pinched from this total after designating these hours the so-called margins of the night. Member States have not been prescribed set times but rather a set number of hours, and quite rightly so. The rapporteur has shown great creativity in bringing forward framework directives, daughter directives and noise maps to be made available to the public. The Confederal Group of the is happy to support him in this, although we would have preferred to take things one step further in our efforts to find appropriate solutions and tackle those making money on the back of pollution. Now that it has transpired in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy that our more far-reaching wishes cannot count on the support of the two major groups, I hope that at least the rapporteur’s moderate proposals will secure a majority.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Lynne, ladies and gentlemen, it is a happy coincidence that this week, just a few metres away from the Chamber, we can see an exhibition organised by Bernd Posselt entitled, 'chain of understanding'. It shows hands, helping hands, joining hands, hands expending energy, and this exhibition is devoted to disabled people and includes work done by disabled people. At this point I should therefore like to thank all of those who give time, patience, energy and love and make sacrifices for those who need their help. This includes the families of disabled people, but many more besides. We should not leave them out in the Year of Disabled People. My second point is that I am glad that 2003 is to be the Year of Disabled People, particularly now, because for me it also shows that the Stability and Growth Pact and an aggressive disability policy are not only not contradictory, but also not mutually exclusive, if we are serious about the European social model, defending the dignity of all human beings and ensuring respect for human rights, which are principles to which we feel committed. We still have much to do, however. We need more equality in everyday life. This involves firstly actually implementing all of the constitutional provisions. We need to move from principle to practice. Secondly, we need more comprehensive integration. Integration must not end at the school gates, but must also encompass working life and social life. Thirdly, we need disabled people to have the right to receive support to live the life of their own choosing. Disabled people must be able to decide for themselves how they wish to live their lives. Fourthly, we have to change the images we have, such as the image of a disabled person doing handicrafts. Here, PCs, the Internet and integration using the new media could be very helpful. With this in mind, we are looking forward to the Year of Disabled People, because we hope that it will sharpen the focus of our work and that we will be able to take further initiatives to eliminate the injustices and barriers which exist in our society. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am delighted with the Commission proposal on the Marco Polo programme which should contribute towards a shift in the transport of goods from road mainly to short sea and inland shipping, and soon also to rail. At present, the White Paper is before us in Parliament and if there is something we are all agreed on, it is that something should be done to prevent a total standstill. Nit-pickers criticise us for interfering with the free market forces in an unacceptable manner, but this is somewhat laughable if one considers the amounts involved. As if this small amount would make any difference to market forces! Let us not get carried away here. We are already very happy if, with Marco Polo, we can persuade the sectors involved to be more resourceful in thinking of ways of transporting goods from A to B. Road transport should therefore not fear an exodus. In fact, within a few years, the sector will want more goods to be transferred to other modalities in order to maintain mobility and cut down on traffic delays. With regard to the amendments, we also tried to cater for small investors in the programme, while keeping the programme intact. Parliament wants to give the sectors involved a clear signal. We are quite happy to help clear obstacles to reach the modal shift. We do not want to impose any rules, but we do expect the sectors to use their common sense, for doing nothing leads to inertia and an enormous drop in dynamism and competitiveness. The sectors I have talked to have, in fact, interpreted the programme in this way and have appreciated the gesture. Rail transport must, in my view, make a greater effort, cut down on red tape and work in a more customer-friendly manner. Failing this, I fear that citizens and governments will not be prepared to invest in new or modern rails. Can you detect any improvements yet, Commissioner? For I cannot. I fail to understand why the Council wishes to cut the programme's funding. Europe will make an utter fool of itself. More funding would be a more reasonable suggestion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, unfortunately the situation in the region is still very critical. There are enormous restrictions on the Palestinian people, military action is persisting, terrorist actions are persisting and, as has been said here, last week another fifteen civilians were murdered and more than fifty were wounded. We must take account of the fact that no democratic society can endure weekly terrorist actions without demanding that its leaders act. In addition, on a political level, we have witnessed the regrettable resolution approved by Likud, the importance of which we should not overestimate since luckily it is a minority view within the Knesset and also within Israeli society, as indicated by the opinion polls mentioned by Mr Solana, just as the statements by the leader of the radical Islamic group Hamas do not naturally represent the views of the Palestinian National Authority. However, there are some hopeful signs. The huge demonstration by citizens in Israel calling for an end to the occupation, President Arafat’s statements against terrorist actions, ordering police action and indicating his willingness to accept co-existence with a Jewish State, which coincide with the statements made in Sharm-el-Sheikh by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Libya, and also the end of the confinement of Mr Arafat and the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, are naturally extremely positive. The hand of the European Union is clearly evident in some of these hopeful signals – and we should bear this in mind since we often tend to underestimate our own capacities. The mediation of the European Union is crucial and we must therefore roundly reject the unfair and unfounded accusations that Community contributions are being misused. I am happy with the speedy and thorough explanation by Commissioner Patten, but, as he himself has said, we must be very scrupulous. On previous occasions my group has expressed its concern about the destination of certain aid for education. The parties in the conflict recognise that the participation of the international community is essential. We must contribute to consolidating the existence of the Quartet so that it may ensure the staging of an international conference, which of course incorporates the Arab countries, and let there be no doubt that the European Union will play a prominent role in that conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European strongly welcomes the Morillon report which we find skilful, frank and forceful. We will resist the efforts, some of them fairly spurious, to u t the balance the report successfully achieves, especially those amendments which seek to set up the European Parliament as a tribunal upon the past. Turkey is clearly the place for a debate on the past as part of its general self-examination concerning fundamental rights. Such a self-appraisal will amount to a veritable cultural revolution. We should be satisfied that process is proven to have started. The Morillon report and the accession to partnership commit the European Union to Turkey's candidature. It is now up to Turkey to show that it is committed to membership. The European Parliament will play its part in fostering relations with political parties, the NGOs and the press, as well as developing its tricky and sometimes fraught relationship with the Grand National Assembly. European Liberals are certainly prepared to play their part in bringing closer the prospect of Turkish membership and the spreading of prosperity, stability and security to all European peoples.

Political group: ELDR
I do not agree that, in the name of competition between state and private services provided in the postal sector, we should be led to increase the cost of postal services to citizens and to a complete denial of the utility function of state post offices. That is why I too, like the whole of the Group, voted against the amendments by the Group of the and the proposal as a whole.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have voted against Mr Fatuzzo’s report on safe and sustainable pensions. My main criticism is that the report is designed to open the way for a transition from the open coordination method to a Community method in which all the institutions participate fully. I believe it would be unfortunate if the open coordination method were to be abandoned through opening the way for a process leading to the Community method’s also being applied in the pensions area. Nor is there any support for this in the Treaties. I have not therefore been able to vote in favour of the report.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted against the report “Public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents” because despite its promising title, it seeks less to extend opportunities for access than to regulate them and thereby give the institutions the right to restrict public access. The institutions concerned would actually retain the right to class as ‘confidential’ documents in fields as diverse as “defence and military matters, international relations, economic, financial or monetary policy and public security” as well as “documents concerning court proceedings, inspections, investigations or financial audits”. In other words, more or less everything can be classified as secret. There would appear to be even less public access to the documents of the European institutions than is permitted in some Member States. In this field, as in many others, the least we should do is to narrow the gap between the least anti-democratic practices and those which are most transparent. The fact of the matter, however, is that there is no reason for any document from the European institutions to be concealed from the public. We are in favour of the full publication of every document, every agreement and every treaty, as well as parts of all the speeches that are today made behind closed doors, of all the dealings kept secret and all the lobbying, which have led Parliament, the Council or the European Commission to take a decision or issue a directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Drugs are one of the issues of greatest concern to European citizens. Combating drugs requires a European dimension that includes the immediate adoption of legal instruments against the manufacture and trafficking of drugs, cooperation with producer countries and the promotion of preventing and combating drug addiction. Mr Pirker’s proposal responds to the steady increase in the production and trade in synthetic drugs. It is a matter of concern that most illegally produced synthetic drugs originate in Europe – according to data compiled in 1999 by the Swiss Federal Criminal Investigation Office, the Netherlands alone accounts for more than 50% of world production. There is an urgent need for effective and rigorous control of the manufacture and sale of substances which, whilst also being chemical products with legitimate applications, are frequently diverted to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. This does not apply to the legal trade in these substances, specifically the manufacture of medicines. I support this proposal, which transforms the current directive into a Regulation, allowing legislation to be simplified, making it easier to implement – in a uniform and concurrent way – (which is even more important in the context of enlargement). The main aim is to monitor the trade in drug precursors in a harmonised way and prevent their misuse for illicit drugs production, through closer cooperation between the competent authorities and economic operators (who should immediately notify the authorities of unusual orders or transactions), which must be extended to substances that have not to date been included on our lists.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is an aspect of Mr Knörr’s report which is of particular interest to my group. As you know, Commissioner, in its part-session of April this year, Parliament approved, at first reading, an amendment on the transitional right in its application which said that the Member States could request a transitional period from the Commission of no more than two years to adapt their accounting systems to the provisions of this regulation. In its subsequent communication to Parliament, the Commission said that it accepted that amendment provided that it was interpreted as meaning that it had the capacity to reject, ‘where necessary’, a request submitted by a Member State. Although it is doubtful that an explanatory statement of a Commission communication can repeal the text in question, the expression ‘where necessary’, Commissioner, could be interpreted as a discretional power on the part of the Commission to reject a well-founded request from a Member State without the Commission having to justify its decision. Precisely to prevent such a situation, my group has tabled an amendment which says that the Commission will grant the said period provided that the Member State in question can demonstrate the existence of objective criteria which hinder the immediate application of the provisions of the regulation. Needless to say, Commissioner, this amendment has the sole purpose of dealing with this type of situation in an objective way and subjecting it to a regulated, and not discretional, procedure on the part of the Commission. Since this amendment, Mr President, is the only one to have been tabled, and in order to simplify the procedure and speed up the approval of this recommendation, my group would be prepared to withdraw this amendment if the Commission, Mr Solbes, makes a statement accepting the content of the amendment, which, I repeat, simply intends to ensure that this type of request is dealt with objectively and that it is subjected to a regulated procedure, preventing the possibility of discretionary behaviour on the part of the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I certainly agree with Mr Bowe's final summary. Although the common position places firm controls on permitted emissions from waste incinerators, I know that whenever proposals to build such an incinerator are made in my country, people rise in protest, they distrust the operator's claims and I have a degree of sympathy with them. So I and many of my colleagues will be backing most of Mr Blokland's amendments because we want the highest possible standards. I have no problem at all if these prove technically difficult to achieve – no problem, because Britain has a shameful record of having the lowest household waste recycling in Europe and great room for improvement. Many of us believe that any government in our country will encourage the construction of waste incinerators as an alternative to encouraging the alternatives. It would be a case of 'throw it on the furnace' and putting it out of sight and out of mind which to my mind is a false approach. We have to concentrate on reducing waste, recycling what is left and leaving incinerators as a last resort.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, last June the Committee on Petitions travelled to my region, Asturias, and spoke with several petitioners. A group of petitioners presented Mr Gemelli with a petition denouncing the planned route for a motorway in my region – the Cantabrian motorway – because it appears that it violates Community law and also seriously jeopardises very significant farming operations funded by the EAGGF. Meanwhile, I also presented a question which Mrs Wallström replied to in a preliminary fashion and which she will reply to at length later, as she has said. What surprises us is that, without having debated this issue in the Committee on Petitions and without having received a second reply from Mrs Wallström, an MEP from the majority group in this Parliament, accompanied by the Secretary-General of his party, should have visited Mrs Loyola de Palacio, had talks with two top officials from the European Commission and appeared publicly in my region saying that the case was closed. Mr President, this is an attack on the credibility of this Parliament and on the competences of the Committee on Petitions. It also calls into question the independence of the European Commission, in this case, and of certain Commission officials, and what I would like, Mr President – and I will end here – is for it to be verified whether this was the case. We cannot allow a decision to be taken before there is a debate in the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. I would ask the President – and I will send him more documentation – please to ascertain whether this was the case.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would also briefly like to welcome the Commissioners and raise an issue that will occupy centre-stage throughout the debate, particularly but not exclusively with regard to agriculture. The European Union has pursued the right policy, which is to attempt to distinguish between the poorest countries, the so-called ‘least developed’ countries and the developing countries because there are enormous differences between these nations. India, Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, have nothing in common with the problems facing Mozambique or Burkina Faso. The issue that we are now addressing, in other words, special and differentiated treatment, must be studied very carefully, because we cannot treat all these countries in the same way, since they are in fact different countries, with very different levels of development. This is why I would ask our Commissioner: what support does the approach adopted on this matter by the Commission offer the poorest countries, an approach that attempts to make a distinction between the poorest countries and the less poor ones?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the truth is that, as has been quite rightly pointed out, we have dedicated two and a half years of work on an important and critical issue which, as we can see, inspires great passion. I am genuinely surprised by today's debate, because it appears that we are pitting the social Europe of the nineteenth century against a form of capitalism and the Mafia activities of the Chicago of the 1920s in our ports. And in fact what we want is precisely the opposite. This is the twenty-first century. We want a modern and effective social Europe. We want sustainable ports, which are competitive and able to provide an alternative to other types of transport. What we are being presented with does not give us this of course, but it is a small first step, much less than what many of us expected. That is the Europe I believe in. The Europe of the nineteenth century, the Europe which reflects the Chicago of the Twenties, is not my Europe. Perhaps some people want that. Perhaps that is what some people want to maintain. Naturally, we are not going to support it and we are going to vote in favour of conciliation. I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on having maintained the objective of modernising our ports, the will of the rapporteur and the will of certain parliamentary groups which have defended, despite the absolutely unacceptable pressure they have received from certain workers in European ports, the modernisation and competitiveness of our ports.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks for, and congratulations on, the result that has been achieved after all. I know that it has been very difficult to bring this very important Directive to fruition. At all events, we now have a draft on which to vote tomorrow, and I and the Group of the shall be supporting it. This does not mean that we are completely satisfied with the result. The ‘polluter pays’ principle is excellent. It is also excellent that we now have a harmonised system of liability to prevent environmental damage and ensure that the damage already done is remedied. As Mr Manders said, Europe had not been properly ready for it; at least, parts of Europe may not have been ready for it. There was a good number of us that wanted a more harmonised system, and we could have gone a little further than this. After first reading we were very content, but after second reading we were no longer so content. Now we have a compromise that we can live with, and it is a good thing that something has been achieved, after all. The proposal that the Commission should present a report after six years on the mandatory financial security instruments, in particular, is incredibly important if these are to function at all. One way of reaching a compromise at the final stage is through a declaration by the Commission, in which it makes clear that it intends to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the compromise reached between Parliament and the Council. I am not sure whether such a declaration would be binding, but I hope so, so that we do not drag our heels for these six years. I hope that this does effectively apply. Perhaps Mrs Wallström could tell us something about the legal status of this type of declaration?

Political group: Verts-ALE