GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The freedom of movement on which this European Union is founded is daily denied to our continent's 37 million disabled citizens. There is no more important question in the campaign for comprehensive human rights for disabled people than the pursuit of accessible public transport. The directive finally agreed today, is a historic step forward in that campaign. It shows that the cost of access for industry is affordable, if only designed-for-all principles are included at the beginning. It shows that European regulation really can make a difference in enforcing rights for disabled people. Above all, it shows that eleven years of tireless campaigning by the disability movement, by Buses for All in my own country the UK, was absolutely worthwhile, necessary and ultimately victorious. Congratulations to all of you. I am proud that the European Parliament has helped deliver your demands. - de Roo report (A5-0296/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission proposes extending Decision 96/411 until 2002, removing certain articles in order to simplify its implementation and bringing forward the payment of 30% of the Community contribution to the Member States, and to do all of this in accordance with the codecision procedure. In 1997 an amendment to this Decision was presented which extended by two years the deadline for Member States to send their reports and the deadline for the Commission to draw up a progress report for Parliament and for the Council. Given the importance of the common agricultural policy, the availability to everybody of reliable information for the purposes of decision making is essential. Therefore, it must be a priority for the institutions to provide the means for this information to be ever more complete, reliable and quick, and therefore agricultural statistics must be ever more flexible, harmonious and coherent with other statistical fields with the possibility of incorporating new sources. To this end, we have to identify, firstly, the areas in which it is possible to implement rationalisation measures, secondly, areas where there are new and increasing needs, and thirdly, general principles in accordance with which actions are carried out. Having said this, it should not be necessary to point out that all the Member States should act in accordance with these intentions. However, this is not the case: this is a voluntary programme for the Member States. I would like to stress that it is not at all easy for this Parliament to understand that any Member State might say “I am not interested, I am not taking part”. The common agricultural policy belongs to all the Member States. It affects all of us. Therefore, I would like both the Commission and the Council to reconsider the matter and for the next proposal submitted to this Parliament to establish the obligatory nature of its application in all Member States, with a single legal basis in the statistical field. There is another aspect which I would like to point out to the Commission and the Council with regard to amendment 5, which I hope will be taken into account, given that the information requested in it, according to Regulation (EC) 1390/99, which entered into force on 23 November 1999, establishes in article 2 that “each Member State will provide the Commission with all the information classified by budgetary items which will be forwarded at the request of the Commission within 30 days”. Therefore, I request a specific commitment by the Commission that it will define each year, amongst the priority plans for technical action proposed to it by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics, the things requested in our Amendments Nos 4 and 5, since otherwise, the codecision procedure would be delayed and it would become more difficult for the Member States to draw up their statistical reports. Therefore, I would like to hear the Commission’s opinion with regard to this point in the debate.

Political group: PPE-DE
The removal of borders and the achievement of the single market on 1 January 1993 highlighted the existence of a market of more than 370 million consumers, for which accompanying rules had to be drawn up to guarantee them a number of rights. Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety (DGPS) was drawn up to that end. Although the general approach of the directive adopted in 1992 proved satisfactory, the objectives set out in it were not all achieved because of the lack of clarity or gaps in some of its provisions. The proposal is interesting overall, but several highly important amendments that Parliament had adopted at first reading, in particular the amendments on the safety of services, the precautionary principle, product monitoring and the European product safety network were not incorporated. The responsible parliamentary committee therefore decided, justifiably, to table them again. Conversely, the common position does include Parliament's amendments on charity shops in a recital that stipulates that, in relation to charitable activities, it may prove impossible to provide information on the origin of a product and the risks it might contain. The Council has also introduced certain innovations in relation to the Commission's initial proposal, in particular: Modification of the definitions of ‘product’ and ‘safe product’ to clarify the scope of the directive, especially in regard to services; Introduction, again for the sake of clarification, of additional definitions relating to ‘serious risk’ and ‘withdrawal’; Introduction of a three-stage procedure, with the right of appeal to the regulatory committee, in order to define European standards; Additional provisions to encourage producers and distributors to become more involved in the voluntary sector. These proposals go in the right direction. Product safety must be taken into consideration when the rules governing the single market are adopted. That is a vital condition for restoring consumer confidence, which has been somewhat shaken by the scandals of all kinds that have blown up recently. It is vital to the sound operation of the single market. Amending this directive is, therefore, a step in the right direction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my card has disappeared. I put it here on my seat and when I came back it was gone. Someone has taken my card, meaning that I cannot vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, throughout the European Union recreational craft are used mainly for leisure activities and I do not think this will change in the next few years. This leisure activity has become extremely popular over recent years. There are now over 3.5 million motor boats in the European Union and the number is rising. If you include sailing boats and rowing boats, there is one boat for every 70 citizens. The use of recreational craft – and here I must disagree somewhat with our rapporteur – is not totally without its problems. Certainly, exhaust emissions compared with overall exhaust emissions from other engines in the European Union are tiny. We have brought about a great many improvements with cars and lorries over recent years and we should seek to achieve fundamental improvements in the recreational craft sector. More importantly, people living on the banks of highly frequented inland waters live with the impression that the noise from motor boats is a constant source of disturbance, even at quiet times. The point here, I think, is that we need to reduce the level of noise generated by these recreational craft. People trying to relax at the weekend and local residents in particular sometimes have to put up with a great deal of disturbance, precisely because of the increase in the number of recreational craft. Nor must we underestimate the noise generated when the water is displaced by boats travelling at high speed. Implementing the directive will reduce noise and exhaust emission levels. I too think that the derogations proposed in committee are right. More importantly, I think the derogations for historic craft and self-build craft are justified. Building these craft often takes a long time and is a leisure activity in itself. We need to retain this. However, as I have already mentioned, recreational craft are used in areas in which there are large numbers of people trying to relax, which is why it is especially important to keep on reducing noise pollution and why I think it would be wrong to allow any further derogations. However, I think it is right that, even with the need for harmonisation, Member States should still be able to issue stricter requirements for inland waters used for drinking water supplies. This has nothing to do with making inland waters off limits; it is a move towards reducing costs.

Political group: PPE-DE
I thank the Commissioner for his answer. I am slightly perturbed that it seems to be taking so long to get this matter addressed. As we have just heard, it is not going to be until 11 March that we get further developments. I should like to ask the Commissioner, first, what measures are going to be recommended which will increase ownership by local people on the ground in the Stability Pact. It has been seen as remote and, unless we have proper ownership, quite frankly it will continue to be remote. Secondly, one of the areas of concern has been the quality of implementation in the Stability Pact. Is he happy that we are moving in the right direction in terms of implementation? Thirdly, there is a view that there was a chronic lack of information on the ground about the Stability Pact. Is a strategy being put in place to deal with that?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for answering the question. I would be interested to know how the system has actually been prepared for the enlargement of the European Union. This will of course present particular challenges in terms of bookkeeping. We are also aware of the accusations that have appeared in the media. What precautions will you take in the future to ensure that the existing system will guarantee, even after enlargement, that financial management is tailored to future requirements and that the European taxpayer is protected?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy’s area of specialisation is industry, external trade and scientific research. The Committee’s opinion focuses on the examination of the ban on animal experiments in testing cosmetics specifically from these points of view. It would appear that the global cosmetics industry has been unable to come up with alternatives to animal experimentation as quickly as the European Parliament would have hoped. Cooperation between industry and the scientific community has not worked, and researchers have not availed themselves sufficiently of the EU’s fifth Framework Programme in the development of alternative methods. To speed up the introduction of alternative methods, our Committee is suggesting that a ban on animal experiments in the testing of end products and cosmetic ingredients should come into force according to a faster schedule than that which the Commission is proposing. Regarding the marketing ban on products proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, according to information received by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, it may be that a marketing ban, a sales ban, on cosmetic products that have been tested using animals is in conflict with WTO regulations. That is not entirely certain, however, as no precedents have been set. As a specialist committee in the field, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is not proposing a sales ban. This should serve as something of a warning to Parliament. It may turn out that a sales ban on cosmetics tested on animals outside the EU will lead to countermeasures in the WTO. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee, I see it as a problem that may arise, but I also understand the view of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy: we have to test the limits of the WTO position. As it is a matter of ethical principles with regard to the relationship between people and nature, an industrial bloc such as the EU must be able to standardise its financial and industrial activities. Our Committee also defends the consumer’s right to information through the proper labelling of products that have not been tried out on animals.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, I notice that you have in any event made some moves towards a policy whereby infection and vaccination do not immediately lead to the removal from farms. This might be a first step, but in my own opinion, and that of my group, it is probably not sufficient. After all, we cannot deny that the current line of attack with regard to foot-and-mouth disease is unacceptable in real terms, and also from an economic, social and ethical point of view. The disease is continuing to rage out of control in Great Britain, which is leading to huge mass graves and enormous losses. In the Netherlands, twelve cases in a limited area have now led to the slaughter of almost 100 000 animals. In addition, social life has been disrupted to some extent over a large area, and other sectors, such as the medium-sized and small businesses, are suffering huge losses too. In my own country, we are now talking in terms of more than EUR 100 million. This also applies to the rural areas which are far removed from the affected area. For that reason, one could claim that the remedy, namely control by means of destruction, is worse than the disease itself. I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following questions. Why are the Commission and Council not drawing from experience in South Africa and Argentina, among other countries, where outbreaks were successfully brought under control by means of comprehensive vaccination schemes? Why is the Commission not putting the report published in 1999 on the testing of vaccinated animals to good use? Now that the enormity of the economic impact outside agriculture has become apparent, and there is – with good reason – widespread dissatisfaction among the public, who refuse to accept animal suffering, what is the Commission intending to do about this in the light of a thorough overhaul of the present non-vaccination policy? Does the Commission really condone the fact that for each animal infected with foot-and-mouth, tens of thousands of other, often still healthy, animals are being killed and destroyed? My question also falls within the scope of fighting BSE, for it is a well-known fact that we have a surplus of beef and veal. I would like the Commission to confirm, in plain language, that this approach of the foot-and-mouth outbreak is not related in any way to the BSE policy, where it is taken for granted that animals have to be removed from the farms and destroyed. Mr President, on this basis, I believe I have to conclude that the current policy of controlling foot-and-mouth can, both ethically and economically, no longer be justified, and I eagerly await your answers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is slightly bizarre that we should be discussing Serbia in this Chamber at a time when the Serbian parliament building is going up in flames and hundreds of thousands of people are on the streets. Despite this, I would like to make an attempt at explaining why I am positive and optimistic about the outcome at the moment. There is of course the support of hundreds of thousands of people – the figure of one million has even been mooted – who are prepared at this moment to put themselves at risk in order to support the opposition and to help Mr Kostunica against the wishes of Mr Milosevic. There are also the latest reports on the role of the police, which, as has been apparent for some time, have been in doubt as to whether to continue to support the regime, and which, as it appears from the first reports now coming in, have opted to side with the demonstrators; according to the latest reports, the same could happen with the army. There is also the fact that the chairman of the state broadcasting corporation has resigned, this being a signal, I believe, that he refuses to act as the extension and mouthpiece of the Milosevic regime any longer. I would like to make two minor observations with regard to the future. I wholeheartedly support the proposal and appeal by Doris Pack to reach the decision quickly, in fact as quickly as possible, to lift the sanctions, because these have done far more harm than good. I would also like to say – and this is more of an appeal to the Council, but I am sharing it with the Commission and Parliament for now – let us not just make fine declarations with regard to the aid which we will soon be willing to grant to Serbia, but let us also make room for this cause in our own budget, the European Union’s budget, so that we do not end up concluding that we can only help Serbia by taking funding away from other projects in the Balkans which need our support. Finally, I would like to propose that a delegation from Parliament visit Serbia at the earliest opportunity, and once a new Yugoslavian government has been installed, so that we, in tandem with this new government, can make plans for the reconstruction of a new Serbia.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although it is true that the text is flawed, as the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the rapporteur have already underlined, I would still venture to suggest that this legislative resolution is an example of transparent, simplified and efficient Community legislation. After all, in the Community Customs Code, a successful attempt has been made to harmonise and simplify legislation in a transparent manner, which surely must always be the objective. I can only applaud the Customs Code, and I am, therefore, somewhat more positive than Mrs Ferrer, for example, for it indeed forms the basis of various areas of Community policy within the framework of Community action of the national customs authorities. The goal to achieve simplified yet quality communication whilst building in a sufficient level of flexibility with regard to the basic rules, thus improving the procedure for collecting duties and offering a higher degree of adjustment of the provisions with regard to offering goods at customs, meets one of the requirements of the single market, and that has been achieved in this case, so much so, in fact, that many countries have drawn on this model in order to speed up the process to be able to take part in international trade. In broader terms, the Community Customs Code is one of the most important legal instruments for establishing the amount of outstanding duties and to establish to whom these are due. The code forms the legal basis for levying these duties and, as such, one of the key instruments for protecting the financial interests of the Community and for ensuring the smooth running of the Community policy in different areas. In short, I believe I can safely say that the administration now has all the possible levers at its disposal in order to fulfil its task efficiently and within the timeframe provided, and I assume that the European Parliament can invite the administration to make the results of this legislative resolution felt as soon as possible.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the liberal group supports the tenor of the rapporteur’s proposals. How often do I read in the paper that one or other incident has occurred. It is by no means always serious, but still. It is therefore in the interest of safety that an effective, transparent system be put in place for reporting these incidents at international level, so that we can gain an overview and draw lessons from the data gathered. However, our group attaches great importance to the extent to which the information received from those who report who actually require the information will be given it. Secondly, it is, in our opinion, important for the anonymity of those who report incidents to be protected. That is, of course, to be welcomed, but if individuals who report incidents are guilty of gross negligence, it must be possible to prosecute them. It is not acceptable for people to be cleared of their negligence by reporting the incident involved. We are therefore pleased with the support which our amendments received in the committee. However, we do struggle with a few other amendments, and I would mention Amendments Nos 5, 6 and 7 for the same reasons, in fact, that we tabled our amendments and that we received that support. Amendment No 5, in particular, does not promote clarity, but as I said before: I should like to thank the rapporteur, and the liberal group supports the proposals on the whole.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this proposal by the European Commission is the first attempt to adopt a comprehensive system in the European Union with a view to preventing and repairing environmental damage. I am sure everyone agrees that we are in urgent need of such a scheme. However much we agree on the principle, however, the more divided Parliament seems to be on its scope. How far should we go in protecting the environment and the obligation to repair the damage? There are numerous specific points of conflict: the precise description of environmental damage, the exclusion of certain industrial sectors, the extent of the polluter pays principle, the fixing of financial guarantees, the insurability of risks and the fixing of maximum amounts for repairing damage. Our rapporteur, Mr Manders, whom I heartily congratulate, has attempted to reconcile what are often highly diverse standpoints, and I believe the result is a well-balanced report and a well-balanced result which takes account of the many interests and economic sectors involved in this subject. That is ultimately what we all want: a good, well-defined, uniform European framework which provides a comprehensive approach to environmental damage with specific European standards and the same rules for the whole of the European Union; one in which everybody knows exactly what they must comply with. I have no doubt that many people, including our green fundamentalists, would like to go much further. The question is, however, not whether this is necessary or useful, but whether this is achievable at the moment. After all, the question then arises as to whether this is affordable or insurable for the economic sectors or whether it will remain incalculable for them. Those parties who would like to go much further must realise that they may be striving for the unachievable and that we may end up empty-handed at the final vote. We must not allow this to happen. The most important thing at the moment is to achieve a good general scheme for the immediate future in which we tackle the real responsibilities. We cannot afford to waste any more time.

Political group: ELDR