GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am a great believer in health and safety, but I am also a great believer that we are not going to change everything by legislation. If we could legislate away things like poverty, accidents, illness and death, then we should have done it yesterday, but we are not going to do that. That being said, there are things we can do at European level, which include changing the culture, the culture where we work, the culture we live in. This report by Mr Pronk goes some way towards doing that and doing it very well. He should be congratulated on all that, because he has brought excellent conclusions into this report. He has made history as well, by having the first report to go through under codecision and the first report on health and safety. It augurs very well for the future of what we should hope to achieve through this process, because Parliament has been very responsible in its approach to using codecision. Parliament is not always pointed to as being responsible or informed, but in this particular area we were better informed and, in some respects, I feel, more responsible. It has made spectacular progress in the area of small to medium-sized enterprises, by far the biggest sector we could ever hope to address. This is where most accidents occur in the workplace and yet there is undisguised dismay amongst myself and other colleagues at the fact that we take very little account of this. You are 50% more likely to have an accident at work if you work for a small to medium-sized business. The information which will be provided, which was a vade mecum in this report, to small businesses and which they now have a right to be informed about, will go a long way in helping to change the culture in the workplace. It should be used in other reports in other areas, and we should learn from that. On the other hand, as a participant in the conciliation process, I was pleased at the very real response of the Council to Parliament’s amendments and take note for future reference about how we can achieve the various amendments and positions we wish. Under the former procedure of cooperation of course we had our successes and the Commission was very much a part of that, and we still enjoy that acceptable relationship. Safety is one of those areas where we can always find middle ground to achieve what we really want. It is time now for governments to listen to what this Parliament has to say 100% of the time and for those governments to act. Parliament is not in opposition to other institutions, it is a balance and it is a brake. It is unfortunately precisely because ministers were too close together, too keen to have cosy relationships away from scrutiny at European level, that we now have this process. It introduces transparency and clarity, and that can only be good for the trust of the people of Europe. Many lives will be affected by this report and the work that has gone into it, many businesses will be pleasantly surprised by the balanced outcome, and if there was more work like this, perhaps even Europe would become popular in places like Britain, who knows?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I, on the other hand, welcome the adoption of this raft of measures today with satisfaction, and if we have any cause for regret at all, it is that it has taken so long to achieve: we have wasted 10 years over this dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom – which was not even based on historical fact – but it cannot be helped. Today, at last, a new horizon has opened up before us. I have to say that, in any case, a great many difficulties arose because the dossier was and still is genuinely complex, and its passage has certainly not been smooth. The effects of this complexity have been felt even today in this House, although it is clear to everybody that there are many economic, safety, environmental and consumer protection justifications for producing this package: we have seen the amount of delays, the level of air traffic congestion, the costs of this congestion and the difficulties of creating new airspaces in terms of safety. Despite the fact that we can all see that there are more than excellent reasons why we need this raft of measures, objections have been raised even today and have taken a number of different forms: the rather unusual reference to the States’ sovereignty, cooperation with the military authorities, which has suddenly become so vital – I am particularly surprised to see the far left showing such deference towards the military authorities – and the confusion between liberalisation and privatisation. These are all objections which, in my view, in actual fact conceal a certain resistance and the desire to maintain the status quo, the desire not to change, which is the exact opposite of what our citizens are demanding from us. Commissioner, there are many areas in which Europe needs to take a step backwards rather than forwards, where it must not take over the functioning and competences of the individual States, but this is not one of them. Our citizens are demanding this initiative, and so you must press ahead resolutely and give us a Single Sky through which everyone can travel safely and without concern.

Political group: PPE-DE
All the proposed amendments in the report are an improvement on the proposal for a Council regulation, which is why we shall vote in favour of them. Having said which, all the amendments maintain the current regime which the Council proposes to phase out, albeit only for a very short period of time. This regime of specific measures applied over a ten-year period has been unable to deal with the serious problems facing the sector, which is important to nut-growing countries on several counts. The main reason it has been unable to do so is because the specific measures fall well short of actual requirements and, more importantly, of the Community's preferential customs regime for third countries such as the USA and Turkey. As a result, any efforts to improve the nut sector are undermined by a glut of very cheap imports of similar products from the USA and Turkey. Given that the ΕU has no intention of changing this preferential customs regime for the USA and Turkey, we need to really boost these specific measures, not just maintain them. Instead of which, the Council is proposing that they be phased out and Parliament, its amendments, is proposing that they be maintained for a certain period of time. We radically disagree with the Council's proposal because we believe in enhancing, not abolishing the specific measures. We shall be voting in favour of the European Parliament report, despite the fact that the measures are so limited. At the same time, we call for these specific measures to be enhanced and for an integrated development programme for this sector, which is important to certain areas of the Mediterranean on several counts and in which, with imports at about 50%, the ΕU is far from self-sufficient.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would also like to welcome the Commission’s initiative of presenting us with a report on its strategic objectives for the next five years, although I hope that it intends, in subsequent documents, to avoid the excess of generalisations and the vagueness of the text which we are examining today. Having said this, Madam President, I am prepared, once again, to be a voice crying in the wilderness as a result of the absence of a fishing policy. It is really surprising that the Commission does not treat the revision of one of its common policies as a strategic objective for the coming years, in view of the reform which must take place in 2002. There is no doubt whatsoever that this revision process will be the most important thing to affect the fishing industry for many years. However, it seems that the Commission does not share this view, although it is the Commission which is obliged to present the Council and Parliament with a report on the functioning of the common fisheries policy over the last decade before the end of 2001, and it is on this basis that the Council will have to make the appropriate decisions with regard to its modification. In fact, the revision process has already begun for many bodies and institutions, such as the European Parliament, which in 1998 already issued and adopted a report pointing out all the current problems and deficiencies of the common fisheries policy. We have often asked for a basic timetable for this revision and we have received no reply. Less than two years is not much time if we bear in mind also that the fishing policy is anomalous with regard to the internal market regulations and that such anomalies should be resolved within the framework of this reform process. Therefore, Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, I would ask that this issue, which is of vital importance to a very significant industry within the European Union, be taken into account in this strategy and these strategic objectives for the next five years.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want to clarify something in the German text. Rather than 'translated', it has to read, 'interpreted'. The term has to be incorporated in all versions of the original Article 12.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to add to what my fellow MEPs have already said by stating how gratifying it is to see the delight shown by Afghan women. However, we are also concerned about the fear that prevails at the same time. Afghan women have good reasons to be afraid, for we know that the Northern Alliance too has perpetrated crimes such as forced marriage. It is important that women and children should survive the winter. At the same time, it is important to proceed with the measures referred to in this House: full access to education and healthcare for women and young girls. We must immediately proceed on the basis of a rights-based approach. Afghan women should not have to beg for the right to education as a favour. Instead, this must be a right. In that way, they will achieve the dignity and receive the education that they require. We also need to earmark funds but, in this area, equality between the different ethnic groups is required. We are delighted about the outcome of the Bonn Conference, but the work must go on. I should also like to draw Mr Nielson’s attention to the special report prepared by my predecessor, Mrs Rehn, on the UN’s peacekeeping activities and ask him to note that there is a lot to do when it comes to the treatment of women by the peacekeeping forces. Women are needed in the peacekeeping forces, and an understanding is required of how to treat women who have suffered violence. I hope that the UN will support the proposal tabled by Mrs Rehn in her report to Kofi Annan. The issue of guilt also needs to be examined, that is to say who bears responsibility for what. It is the only way in which to bring about healing. I believe there is a lot of international experience in this area that we can draw upon. Last but not least, quite a serious issue, Commissioner Nielson. Mine dogs, which are extremely important in clearing away all this devastation, are also needed. I hope that the EU can offer support in this area, too.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, if I speak now, I will not speak again on behalf of my group, so I shall kill two birds with one stone. I will not repeat what my fellow Member, Mr Lannoye quite rightly said – I wholeheartedly agree with him. I spoke to you, Madam President, on this very same subject at the beginning of the month. I think that we should respond to three requirements which advocate including this issue on the agenda for this part-session. First of all, there is a requirement for timely action. This is actually an issue that directly relates to Community life and which was raised last month, most fortunately, by the Temporary Committee and its rapporteur, Mr Gerhard Schmid. We cannot, therefore, wait until September and for the Temporary Committee’s report to discuss this, as some Members are proposing. The next requirement is for the truth. In the answers provided by Commissioner Patten and the Temporary Committee’s rapporteur, Mr Schmid, the explanations contradict the statements made by the official involved. We therefore need an explanation and we need it now, not in September. Lastly, I shall mention the requirement for Parliament to maintain its credibility. Mr Lannoye reiterated the point that the media has already latched onto this affair and if we decided not to discuss it when questions are raised and not to give the facts in response, we would, more or less, be seen to be on the defensive and suspected either of wanting to cover something up or of being inconsistent. In order to avoid running this risk, I think that the best thing to do is to include this item on the agenda.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I must first join with the previous speakers in congratulating the rapporteur on his report, which has been unanimously endorsed. In particular, I am grateful to him for showing such sensitivity to the needs of the sector. The latter is obviously very important in Catalonia. I would also like to thank Mr Bautista Ojeda for being so receptive to the suggestions made by the Catalan regional government. I think it is worth recalling that clearly we are not dealing with one of the major agricultural or livestock sectors central to the common agricultural policy (CAP). Nonetheless, this sector extends over a million hectares and makes a specific and significant contribution in the immediate vicinity. It has considerable social impact too. In my view therefore, the request for maintaining support during 2001 and 2002 must lead, as previous speakers stated, to a permanent support regime per hectare. Consequently we are against Amendment No 10 tabled by Mr Fiori, because requesting support for 2002 and 2003 at this stage would essentially invalidate the report’s main objective. We therefore believe that as outlined previously and in terms of hectare as in Mrs Ayuso’s amendment adopted in committee, namely certified areas, this report presents an approach the Commission should certainly consider.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the report you have presented is ambitious and complex, and I will only touch on a few points. One: I cannot be other than content with your decision to start focusing on the Mediterranean, both because of the contribution to the Middle East peace process and because it will salvage and strengthen the historical and political ties which unite the countries of Southern Europe. We consider that, with the implementation of the geo-political processes, the Mediterranean border is just important as eastward enlargement, which both Parliament and the Commission are working on. Two: the internal market. Working in the European Parliament, we can see that harmonisation of the existing legislation on civil law is essential. In all probability, we ought to start work in the field of administrative law as well. Moreover, every day, we become more aware of the need for a common legal system coordinating the different legal systems of the Member States. Three: the preparatory documents. I can only add my voice to the requests to limit the use of preparatory documents, which are presented several times by several different people in the European Parliament. Despite the fact that they do, on the whole, make for a more in-depth debate, green papers, white papers and statements also have complex, problematic side-effects, as, more often than not, they prolong legislative action in matters in which timing is absolutely essential. Lastly: the Commission’s Work Programme seems to overlook two sectors which are in need of particular attention from the European institutions, especially in the light of the developments constantly taking place in e-commerce. I feel that the Commission should submit proposals on the out-of-court settlement of disputes over on-line contracts and on amendments to the Directive on distance contracts, in order to provide increasingly effective consumer protection.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, yesterday's Minutes in the English also seem to indicate that they were the Minutes of Thursday 17 December. I am sure that Parliament would not be writing today's Minutes before we have actually had our debates and votes. I hope that will be corrected.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I can share the concern of the Member who asked the question, but having said that, I would like to clarify that olive residue oil is a by-product of the olive, which is produced after obtaining the olive oil and, furthermore, from every 100 kilos of olives, 20 litres of olive oil and 1.6 litres of olive residue oil are obtained. We are therefore talking about 8% of production and a product which is consumed very little. As you rightly said, Madam President, the problem has arisen as a result of the method of extracting olive residue oil, and therefore traces of benzopyrene were found in the olive residue oil and, given the lack, as you also said, of a European regulation setting the limits, the Spanish Ministry of Health proceeded, applying the precautionary principle, to withdraw this oil from circulation. Today the extraction techniques have been modified and oil can be obtained which is free of benzopyrene. At the moment they are having the same problem in Italy, for the same reasons. Therefore, I would like to ask the Council whether it is in any way going to promote the filling of this loophole in the law, so that there may be permissible limits in human food, because, as the saying goes, ‘the poison is the dose, not the substance in itself’ and that is the basic principle of toxicology.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last year, despite opposition from governments and farming organisations and a lukewarm response from this Parliament, a fundamental reform was agreed for the common agricultural policy. This will eventually totally disconnect payments to farmers from production. We are now dealing with cotton, tobacco, hops, and olive oil which are all products with regional sensitivities. The Commission proposals are something of a step backwards from the reforms of last year with the exception of hops. However, the Daul and Lavarra reports attempt to resist meaningful reform in cotton and tobacco and, to an extent, in olive oil. Only in the amendments which set a minimum of 60% decoupling for olive oil does the committee move closer to the reform package of last year. I fully understand the difficulties in these sectors and respect the work of the rapporteurs but in the longer term the rural economies which are affected by decoupling are best helped by development measures which can be targeted more directly and effectively. This is the approach for different products which is being applied in parts of my own region. I wish the Commission had been bolder in its original proposals, but I am prepared to support them. However, for the reasons given, I cannot support these two reports as they stand and my final vote will depend on which amendments are adopted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Treaty of Amsterdam provided the European Union with a legal basis for taking action to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. That led to the adoption here a few years ago of a directive against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in employment and elsewhere. In the course of the enlargement process, we have consistently and successfully insisted that penalising sexual contact between persons of the same sex be abolished before a country could join the European Union. In this House, we have also repeatedly reminded countries such as Zimbabwe and Egypt, with which the European Union has concluded agreements, that they should put an end to discrimination and punishment of sexual contact between adults of the same sex. We make ourselves very clear on this point every year in our reports on human rights in the world and within the European Union. It is only logical, therefore, that we also raise this policy at the United Nations. As has already been said, last year, Brazil presented the UN Commission on Human Rights with an initiative to include combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the human rights policy of the United Nations. This year, that proposal will be further elaborated and then raised again. This elaboration will probably include mention of discrimination on grounds of sexual identity. That is a subject on which the European Court of Justice passed a landmark judgment just last week. My group hopes, therefore, that the EU delegation will support this Brazilian initiative in full – every last part of it – and also cooperate on elaborating it further. All further attempts to destroy this initiative by countries minded to do so must be prevented, in cooperation with at least the EU Member States that are members of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first we must express our concern for the Sahrawi people, many of whom have experienced long years of exile and suffering. Solving their problem means respecting the deadlines for holding the referendum that has been postponed again and again. If there were to be another postponement it would seriously aggravate the problem. Stability, security and peace in the Maghreb region depend on this referendum taking place. For the referendum to lead to the fulfilment of those objectives, however, the preparatory work must be done with great care, especially the correct compilation of the full electoral roll, which has still not been achieved, and strict fulfilment of the criteria governing its compilation must be insisted on. The European Union must fully assume its role of mediator in this process, which is important not just for the region itself, but also for the whole of Europe, and especially for certain countries. It must carry out that role by, amongst other things, supporting the decisions of the United Nations and ensuring that the process reaches a conclusion in total transparency and with maximum guarantees, complete probity and respect for democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to continue along the line of reasoning followed during the work on this draft resolution in committee, I would like to table an oral amendment. It is for Parliament to decide: either we insert the words ‘and left-wing’ between the words ‘right-wing’ and ‘extremism’, or we remove the word ‘right-wing’ altogether, and simply refer to ‘extremism’. (More than twelve Members objected to the oral amendment; the President therefore declared it inadmissible)

Political group: PPE-DE