GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
For years we have been warning about risks of accident. For years we have been afraid that a disaster would happen and for years we have fought against the establishment of these plants in the Toulouse area. And now, when the explosion occurs, we have the sudden shock that stunned us at a distance of twenty kilometres, the contradictory information, the toxic cloud, a prefect who is asking to have his house proofed for leaks, all the windows shattered, the reflex to go and pick one’s children up from school, the anguish of seeing cars upside down, windscreens shattered, bloodied drivers wearing masks, the joy of finding one’s daughters, terrified and sheltering in the only classrooms whose windows remain in tact, relieved to see us. Going home, unable to telephone, no means of communication and finally hearing about friends who are in shock, injured or in hospital. Then, after the anguish, the fear and after the suffering comes the time for anger. More than 5 000 of us gathered on the streets of Toulouse on Tuesday and more than 30 000 on Saturday, all shouting ‘Never again’. The disaster in Toulouse is hugely revealing. First of all, it shows the limitations of local democracy and, in particular, of land use planning policies. Town councils have not used their land use plans to keep residential or commercial areas away from danger. There is no safety programme in place. There has been no consultation with local associations or with residents, despite the dangers. Locally elected representatives are equally responsible for what has happened. The disaster also lays bare the policy of industrialists who, for the sake of profit, make not only their employees run risks, but also the surrounding community. Lastly, the disaster has shown up the loopholes in the Seveso directive and in the policies implemented by the European Union. This disaster has shown the limitations of risk management policy. An overhaul of European legislation is essential. We can no longer put up with the existence of such huge risks. We must have a risk prevention policy. The legal liability of industry in the event of an accident must be better defined and increased. Member States must transpose European Union directives, and also comply with existing directives on environmental protection. The liability of policymakers must also be confirmed. Inspections must be stepped up and the responsibility of inspectors, who must be trained to European standards, must also be laid down. Chemical as well as nuclear bombs are located near to most European cities and yet no assessment of the risks has been made. I do not want to play the role of Cassandra, but I would not wish anyone to experience what we in Toulouse went through on 21 September.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Socialist Group welcomes the statement from the Commission. There is no final proof that they have weapons-grade plutonium available and, of course, I support the compromise resolution between a number of groups in this institution. We fully and firmly agree with the trilateral statement made by President Bush, Prime Minister Koizumi and President Kim Dae-jung at the APEC Summit meeting at the weekend calling on North Korea to dismantle its admitted uranium enrichment programme in a prompt and verifiable manner and to come into full compliance with all international obligations in conformity with North Korea's recent commitment in the Japan-North Korea Pyongyang Declaration. Nevertheless, we cannot be entirely blind to the fact that the 1994 framework agreement has not been fulfilled in its entirety by the US either. The first reactor from KEDO scheduled to be online by the end of next year is currently running seven years late. Deliveries of heavy fuel oil, the US contribution to KEDO, have, in the past at least, been sporadic. Most importantly, the US commitment in 1994 to normalise relations, lift the embargo on North Korea – which has been in place for 50 years – and lift the nuclear threat have still not been fulfilled. We welcome the North Korean offer to engage in dialogue on all outstanding issues, which may mean that this becomes an opportunity rather than a threat. We need to look at the issue of missile sales and testing, and the linked inevitable missile exports. We must look at the signing of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Convention by North Korea and outstanding problems around the issue of abductees from Japan. Also, of course, we must look for a continuation of the human rights dialogue. In the meantime, I hope that the EU, as the only entity with diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea, Japan, the US and with the DPRK, will help to initiate such a dialogue, if possible in concert with the other key actor in the region – China. We must maintain humanitarian aid and continue the training of North Korean technicians in Europe if only to take this opportunity. Two small corrections: firstly, Mr Gawronski said the North Koreans refused our invitation. This was not the case. They only had four days notice and asked for it to be postponed until a later date. Secondly, the meeting scheduled for 11 November 2002 will not now take place and I hope we can move an oral amendment to make the point more general in terms of wanting EU involvement at all levels in these discussions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this report has the merit of highlighting the devastating situation of the countries of the developing world with regard to HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, three diseases which alone kill five million people every year. This situation is all the more shocking in view of the fact that, while there is as yet no HIV/AIDS treatment that brings about a cure, such treatments do exist for malaria and tuberculosis. The proposals that have been put forward fall far short of what the problem requires. The rapporteur, moreover, emphasises the ridiculously low priority which the research and development community accords to health problems in developing countries. He points out that only 10% of research activity concerns diseases which are responsible for 90% of disease in the world. He adds that when there is a failure of the market public research should be encouraged. This is true, admittedly, but when there is a failure of the market the private sector should be forced to invest rather than merely encouraged by making society contribute to its profits.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, every day we read newspaper reports of major accidents on Europe's roads, caused by lorries with over-fatigued, over-worked and inexperienced drivers. Who among us does not shake his head and wonder how such a thing is possible on our roads at the beginning of the 21st century? The quality standard for road transport in the EU can and must be increased – there is no doubt about that. The driving profession, with the ever-increasing demands made upon it, must be built up and made more appealing. The safety of road transport must also be improved. It remains to be seen whether the option that the Commission is proposing here will indeed improve the situation. In my view, the directive before us will achieve no decisive added value. Training is inherently to be welcomed and is advantageous to the profession, but the driving test means that every driver, even today, has to demonstrate more than just a comprehensive knowledge of the Highway Code. ‘Swept twice keeps cleaner longer’, they say back where I come from, but there is no clear and compelling logic to the way the Directive now – as I see it, unnecessarily – requires double the course content in many areas. Here is a crucial example. There is in Germany already a real training scheme for professional drivers, which takes three years, so, in comparison, the time required, referred to in the title of the Directive and, incidentally, reduced further by the Council, can only be described as basic vocational training. Nothing more can be achieved within a time limit of 140 hours. I mentioned added value, yet, when I consider the details of the regulations under consideration, what I perceive at several points is more of a deterioration. An eighteen-year-old is now supposed to be allowed to drive a forty-ton lorry with a hazardous load across the Alpine passes – and that after only a few hours' basic training! That cannot be what the originator had in mind. We need the profession of driver to be enhanced; that is what the Directive is meant to do. There is, though, a need for improvement as regards safety on the roads. Perhaps everything would be much better, if we had, at long last, a new tachograph.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, earlier retirement ages, growing life expectancy and the increasing call for early retirement pensions mean of course that many pensions systems have problems remaining financially viable, yet you say, Commissioner, that no special model is being singled out. Is not, however, attention being drawn to the Swedish model, also endorsed by Poland and Latvia, as a way of ensuring future sustainability? Since they will greatly affect pensions sums, does the report go into the significance of the falls in share values that have taken place this summer and that have become still more marked this autumn? This is not a factor we have seen taken into account, yet it means that great caution will need to be exercised where future investments are concerned, given how important falls in share values are to the sustainability of pensions. Have you taken this factor into account during your deliberations?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too would like to begin by paying tribute to Mrs Echerer – and I do not need to insist on this, since many Members have done the same – but I would also like to welcome the statements by Commissioner Bolkestein, who acknowledges the importance of collecting societies at the present time. Intellectual property has developed as a result of technological advances. Until printing there was no real intellectual property. We now have a second technological revolution, the ‘Marconi Galaxy’, with all the new information technologies. As technology advances, the creator moves further and further away from the consumer. Specifically, my colleague, Mr Harbour, talks of the customer, but I prefer to use the word consumer, differentiating between the two classes of client: the final consumer, that is, the long-suffering citizen who has to watch television and radio programmes, and the intermediary, who buys the intellectual property rights, uses them and exploits them. This brings us to the situation we are faced with, with a multiplication of forms of media, but which are increasingly lacking in content. In other words, we have more and more hours of television, more and more electronic hours, more magazines, more books and more means of production, but they are practically devoid of content. And this is the result of a lack of support for the creator. In the current information society, creators are not being protected. We are creating rubbish-media, which use intellectual property in an entirely thoughtless way, with no sense of responsibility whatsoever and, in view of this, creators need to be protected. That is the role of the collecting societies, which are not monopolies, but instruments available to creators so that they can defend themselves in the face of the control of the media by a few media groups, supported by huge economic power and at the service of political or economic interests. Therefore, the only instrument these creators have today are these collecting societies, which constitute employees’ unions, in order to confront the employers’ organisations, which have enormous strength. I agree that collecting societies must adapt to the new situation, because they have arisen at national level and we are about to move on to a transnational, and even world, level. But at least, at European Union level, we should reinforce the action of these collecting societies, so that, at this level, we can have that protection. I would like finally to refer to enlargement. The European Union is going to be enriched with ten new countries which have a great cultural tradition, but in which – as a result of their recent political past – intellectual property has not been sufficiently protected until very recently. I believe it is very important that, in the final enlargement process, we make these countries aware of the need to adapt themselves to the Community acquis, including, amongst other things, collective management, in the face of this danger of monopoly on the part of the large groups controlling the media.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would firstly like to clarify that, during the debate on the previous report, I wished to read a phrase in Spanish, which is the correct linguistic version. I had the right to do so, but I am going to do so tomorrow during the vote, although that is less convenient, since it is different from the phrase read by Mr Nassauer. With regard to the report we are discussing now by Mr Hernández Mollar, I would like to say that this is not a happy occasion. We cannot take pleasure in the restriction of the right to free movement, which – as we pointed out this morning – is an essential factor in the Europeans’ world view. The Group of the , however, despite the irresponsible inclinations in favour of illegal immigration I am accused of by certain Members from the Group, will vote in favour of the inclusion of Ecuador in the list of countries whose nationals require a Schengen visa. It will do so having analysed the information which has been provided by the countries requesting it and because it believes that it will provide better guarantees of the rights of those people who today are being denied entry in the terminals of the European Union’s airports, which often also affects people who wish to enter for the purposes of tourism. In any event, I would like to call on the European Commission to see this as a serious alarm call with regard to a country which is reaching very serious levels of poverty and, in accordance with its own statements on the Union’s immigration policy, to treat this country as a priority objective, in terms of development cooperation and co-development measures. I believe we could thereby compensate for the sad message which unfortunately we have to send today from the Union to the citizens of that country. I thank the rapporteur for his work and for accepting this amendment, because I am convinced that we share this concern.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have to say that I was, as rapporteur, extremely surprised at the 350 amendments in the plenary meeting, whereas we in the committee had an excellent discussion with far fewer amendments than there are now. Nevertheless, I have read the amendments and this evening, we in the relevant committee will see what we can do with them all and make sure that an opinion is brought before Parliament. I am, however, extremely taken aback by the fact that we in the plenary meeting appear to be doing the work now that has not been done in the relevant committee. I should also like to note that there is Europe-wide support for the content of this report. If you feel that there are sections that do not comply with the Rules of Procedure, then I should like to hear from you, in which case we can still, if necessary, withdraw the sections concerned. This is, in principle, an excellent report, at least according to its supporters and detractors in the media world. I therefore fail to understand why we should withdraw it now for reasons of this kind. I should like to have this issue resolved and heard beforehand.

Political group: ELDR
The main task of the European Council in Nice was to make EU enlargement possible. All 15 national parliaments in the Member States will ratify the Treaty of Nice in 2001, regardless of the fact that the majority of members of the European Parliament appear to be dissatisfied with it. Therefore, we Swedish believe that paragraph 42 of today’s report, which addresses issues such as the European Parliament’s assent to the accession treaties, could be worded so as to be much more positive and welcoming. How will this point be received by Estonia, Poland and Cyprus, for example? My party cannot approve paragraph 25 of today’s report, which opens the way for the introduction of a European level of tax, and what is more with decision-making rules based on qualified majority voting. All experience shows that new levels of decision-making for taxation lead to higher taxes and less money left for the citizens of the EU, whom we represent. Another key issue, apart from tax law, when it comes to the decision-making ability of each national parliament and government is defence policy. Therefore, the Swedish Christian Democratic Party also cannot approve paragraph 31 of the report in question which demands that defence policy be included in ‘enhanced cooperation’ or “flexible integration”. We Swedish are happy about two proposals in the report for historic and vital improvements. The first concerns improvements to the opportunity for citizens and national parliaments to access information about, and to monitor, the Council’s work, by making the meetings of the Council of Ministers open when the Council is adopting legislation. This is an issue which I have consistently brought up in the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, and for which I have found increasing support. This is now also the common view of Parliament as a whole. If it is to be possible to talk in terms of democracy – and not just diplomacy – within the EU, this openness must be achieved, i.e. we recommend approval of paragraph 11 of the resolution and Amendment 68. The second proposal is about applying and refining the principle of subsidiarity. There is no single European people, but a great many. There is no single European mother tongue, but a great many. There is no single European nation, but a great many. There is no single European culture, but a great many. Bearing in mind these circumstances, along with fundamental values such as human rights, democracy, openness, clarity in calls for political responsibility and guarantees of cultural and linguistic equality within the EU, the Swedish welcome Amendment 77 on clearly delimiting the EU’s political competencies. This is fully in line with the fact that citizens do not want increased distance from the decision-makers and increasing European political centralisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before beginning my speech, I would propose the following exercise, both to the people who are present and to those who are absent, because there is nobody here from the Council, although there should be. Imagine from now on that you are included in the scope of this directive and that we are talking about your husbands, wives and children. I believe that would be a good exercise. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Cerdeira Morterero. She had a very difficult job to do. The Commission's first proposal was well received by this House. We made certain proposals which have not been taken into account, and not only that, but as a result of the debates of the absent Council we have received a new proposal which we do not like nearly so much. Despite this, the rapporteur has made an effort to find a way to move forward, since we believe this is a very important element of immigration policy which should be established as soon as possible. We therefore accept many of the new proposals presented to us, we accept the basis on which they are founded, we accept the idea of having to demonstrate the capacity to maintain the family, we are prepared to wait for an agreement on a new proposal on subsidiary protection, but there are certain things which, despite everything, we cannot accept. We cannot accept a limitation of entry for minor children for any reason, and this appears obvious to us. We cannot accept the extension of time limits and we cannot accept – we do not like it at all – the number of exceptions which, despite the goodwill of the Commission, appear in the proposal. Despite this, and without much success, we in the are prepared to reach an agreement and continue talking. Ladies and gentlemen, as I have said, we are talking about family life. I imagine that the agrees that this is the basis of our society. We cannot accept a proposal which raises to three years – and three years and nine months if we include the procedure – the period during which a man and more and more often a woman – please bear this in mind – has to wait before having their children with them? Do you know what happens to a child between four and seven years old or between seven and twelve years old? Is it reasonable to create so much disquiet amongst people who we want to live within our society? I would like to pose a question: would it not be better to recognise that we human beings live in families? Could we not create laws which make it easier for families to enter? Would this not be more practical? In exchange, I would be prepared to talk about the inclusion in the quotas of people who come to work, inclusion in the open coordination method, and in these quotas, of people who come for purposes of family reunification. But I believe that that would really be a more practical policy in terms of integrating these citizens into our society. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report involuntarily illustrates the extent to which the EU is lagging behind on two counts which are of crucial importance in today’s world: one is a working democracy and the other is Internet practicalities. While we sit here discussing these issues until the witching hour, the Americans have already organised special senate hearings to look into the problems in detail. Even as an ICANN director, having been elected a few weeks ago, I am having trouble finding out exactly what ICANN does. We simply do not take time to stop and think about it. A few technical points have been addressed. I completely fail to understand why this Commission does not publicly stand up for the fact that we have dot kids, we have dot sex, that we have detailed subdivisions which make everything we have discussed here possible, a clear division between e-commerce and the public sector. The decisive move will be to cut ICANN free from this American domination, not because it is dangerous per se, but because the management of the Internet is at stake and you must do here what you normally only talk of, Commissioner, and create openness and transparency.

Political group: PSE