GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as the final member speaking on this issue, I would like to repeat and underline that the directive will, over time, render occupational noise-induced hearing loss and associated conditions diseases of the past. That is an achievement by the rapporteur, compounded by the fact that there were a number of national positions which were very difficult at the outset of this report, as has been said by other members. A huge amount of work went into that position. From the United Kingdom position, we were left with the situation where a number of issues had to be ironed out. We now have a situation where our Government – and I am surprised at Mr Bushill-Matthews' statement on this: we may have had three different ministers involved, but the fact is that the United Kingdom Government – and this is one of the governments most interested in this particular health and safety measure, believes that this strikes a good balance between improved worker protection and the need to avoid excessive and unnecessary regulation. I think it is important not to caricature health and safety measures when a huge amount of work has gone into ironing out those national positions. We heard a lot from Mrs Lynne about the impact on musicians in the entertainment sector. We have all in the United Kingdom heard much said on this. The fact is that those sectors have been satisfied by what could have been a far more difficult directive. The rapporteur is to be congratulated on the progress made. That is why I will be voting in favour.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I find it a very positive indicator that this conference was held in Durban; that there were wide-ranging discussions; that a resolution was drafted; and that there has been a conclusion. I find that this discussion, in some respects, looks too little to the future and considers too few definite and preventative measures to combat racism so that, if possible, it does not even come into being. I would like to call at this point for the European Union itself to take the lead by good example, and I wish now to refer to two areas of current significance in which we can do something tangible, namely asylum policy and immigration policy. If we succeed in what we have set ourselves, that is, in implementing a unified asylum policy with minimum standards and rapid and reliable decision-making, we will no longer have the situation that faces us now, with asylum seekers waiting for years in ghettos, constrained to work outside the law and becoming marginalised. Rapid decisions lead to help being made available quickly and to recognised refugees being speedily integrated; it prevents the marginalisation that at present occurs. This would amount to the prevention of racism! I seek progress in immigration policy as well. If Member States, as far as they are able and presupposing that work, accommodation and educational opportunities are available, accept citizens from outside States and offer help with integration, then that is another step taken against exclusion and discrimination and in favour of integration, and I believe we should grasp these practical tools in order to be really successful in preventing racism and discrimination. This is an opportunity for our European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, given the importance of the directive on national emission ceilings to this report on a proposal for a daughter directive, it is a little surprising that the order of debate is as it is, because without reduction in the key trans-boundary pollutants we are not going to reduce ozone. This report sets national targets for ozone levels and proposes action plans for dealing with local problems of exceedance. To save time I am going to assume that the respiratory and other health problems associated with ozone are understood, and that every Member of this House will want to reduce them. The disputes between us will be about costs and time-scales, and perhaps also about the accuracy of the Commission's methodology and the achievability of the targets it has set in this directive. Let me deal directly with the Commission's core proposal, the setting of a target for 2010 of 120 mg per cubic metre for ozone, not to be exceeded on more than 20 days per year. Commission proposals for environmental improvements need to be both ambitious and realistic. These proposals are certainly ambitious but many governments dispute whether they are politically realistic, and having just come from a difficult – albeit ultimately successful – group meeting of my own, I know that many Members have doubts. In particular, representatives of the Mediterranean countries point out problems resulting from the strong sunlight they enjoy. I point out that the Commission's methodology has taken full account of this but I look at their faces and still see a degree of scepticism. I did wonder some months ago whether to table amendments, which would suggest a less ambitious outcome, but which would perhaps be more acceptable to Member States. But the Commission's 120 mg target is in line with World Health Organisation proposals, and who am I to suggest that they should be challenged? The number of days of exceedance could easily be adjusted, but that is something to negotiate only when necessary. It is a good target and, if it is at all possible, then it should be retained. The position I have taken in preparing this report is to say that those who want tougher targets than the Commission has proposed should have their views rejected. But equally it would be wrong for us to water down the draft directive. That is why I am sorry to see amendments tabled which reflect the Industry Committee's position. It seems to have been overlooked by many that these amendments, if carried, would leave the European Union in a much weaker position with regard to ozone targets than is enjoyed by the United States of America. We are aware of growing problems of ozone across Europe, but if we are not even prepared to match the standards being set by the USA, one of our great commercial rivals, this would indeed be a great shame and a sorry reflection on our commitment to environmental improvement. I ask Parliament to support my proposals, to give its backing to the Commissioner and to let her play her part in negotiating a common position which is both ambitious and politically realistic.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to continue this internal debate by focussing solely on the Laeken Declaration. It is right, as the Declaration says, that European institutions should become closer to the citizens, less intrusive, less unwieldy and more efficient and open to democratic scrutiny. It is also right that a whole series of questions should be asked in terms of simplifying the process of legislation, on clarifying competencies of the Union and indeed restoring perhaps one or two to Member States, as is mentioned. How to involve the national parliamentarians too is a very important aspect and lastly, it is right, as the President of the Council said, that this is a new departure for Europe as a way of amending Treaties rather than having decisions made behind closed doors and smoke-filled rooms early in the morning. There is a real doubt, however, that these statements of principle will actually become reality. Is the agenda, as some feel, already decided in advance? Will all the voices in the European political spectrum be heard? Will indeed, above all, the views of ordinary European citizens, be taken into account and listened to in the work of the Convention? There were some signs under the previous Presidency but not I am afraid under this one, that they did actually care about European citizens. It had a website – ‘Europa’ or whatever it was, – but we have not heard much about it under this Presidency. In the conclusions of the Council relating to the Convention, one paragraph is devoted to the forum and it seems to be more about informing the network of organisations than having their contributions in the work of the Convention. I therefore make this one appeal today that in the praesidium, and perhaps helped by the Commission, national parliamentarians and others, we really should have a real European debate in the Member States involving European citizens so that when we end up with a constitutional framework, we really have something that Europeans can support. This is the only occasion in history, that I can think of, where citizens can be consulted before a constitution is drawn up rather than afterwards. So please, Commissioner, ensure that everything is done to make sure this European debate will actually take place.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am voting against the Brok report within the framework of the resolution by the group. Not because I am against the accession of the new members, but because the resolution does not mention material issues relating to enlargement: the promotion of an elitist policy in central and eastern European countries servile to the Americans; the break-up of the public sector and of public property; the enforced liberalism which creates social unhappiness; the lack of significant Community resources to help these countries with the integration process; the failure to organise referenda on enlargement in the Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The report by my colleague, Fernando Pérez Royo, on financial collateral arrangements is an important step towards standardising the legal regime governing financial instruments in Europe. Like my colleague, I attach great importance to the harmonisation of these markets, within a reasonable period of time. This is what Mr Pérez Royo's work seeks to achieve. Although, overall, the report is based on the same model of future European financial markets I myself have in mind, the French s have not supported the rapporteur on three points. Article 2(4) broadens the scope of application of the directive to all market participants and thus modifies the order of preferential creditors in the event of bankruptcy. This compromises companies' chances of recovery by transferring ownership of their assets to creditor banks, bypassing preferential creditors (employees, tax and social security bodies). Article 6 provides for the use by the collateral taker of the financial instruments' collateral held under the security financial collateral arrangement; these provisions give rise to difficulties related to ownership rights and traceability of securities and thus threaten the transparency of European financial markets. Finally, Article 10(2), as amended by Amendment No 17, deletes the precise localisation criteria, thus making any credible attempt to increase the transparency of our financial markets doomed to failure and pre-empting the conclusions of the Hague Conference on International Private Law. Since the vote in the plenary confirmed the rapporteur's choice to broaden the scope of the directive, the French s voted against the text as a whole. - Motion for a resolution (B5-0821/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr. President, I also wish to congratulate Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mr Cashman on this second success. They already deserve our congratulations on their work on the original legislation, Council and Parliament Regulation 1049/2001, where their work was crucial in securing that positive result. Now they are coming back to translate that into our Rules of Procedure to ensure that our work is transparent. It is arguable that the European Union is in some ways already more transparent than some of our Member States. It certainly does not reach the highest standards set by some of our Member States, but we are moving in the right direction, although of course it is still not perfect. However we will review it in a few years in the light of experience. Looking at the package of amendments to our Rules of Procedure tabled by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I can say on behalf of my group that we will support the thrust of what the Committee on Constitutional Affairs has put forward. We shall listen to the arguments that are being put forward in this debate and then review our position again, but our group is leaning towards accepting Amendment No 14 from the Group, the first half of Amendment No 15 from the Group, and possibly Amendment No 16 from the Group. We are opposed to the second half of Amendment No 15 from the Group, which is entirely unworkable and would raise a number of practical problems if it were adopted. As Mr Cashman explained, we question whether Amendment No 17 from the Group it is admissible, and I welcome the fact that Mr MacCormick was doubtful about that. I gather it may well be withdrawn and I would welcome that. That is the position of our group, subject to the arguments we are listening to now. However, whatever happens to those particular amendments, I am quite confident that there will be a successful outcome in the vote tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Tibet is an area with its own culture, its own religion and its own political traditions. It is also a so-called autonomous region in China, however meaningless this autonomy is in practice. Every attempt to achieve real autonomy is, after all, regarded as a crime, giving rise to legal proceedings, and the concept of political offences is unknown in China. Political opponents are simply treated as common criminals. The struggle against terrorism provides yet another excuse for this. The death sentences against Tenzin Delek, an influential Buddhist lama, and his assistant, Lobsang Dhondup, pronounced on 3 December, are a sad illustration of this. We regard the accusations as unproven, but the way in which the two people were held in solitary confinement and ultimately sentenced to death after months of incarceration and after a mockery of a trial, confounds us. These death sentences must not be allowed to be carried out; the verdicts must be reviewed on the basis of a fair trial. The dialogue between China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama, who inspires so much hope in this hemisphere, must be resumed, but we must not be naïve in our relationships with this big country. They pay a great deal of attention to what we think of them, but we must not allow ourselves to be blinded by diversionary tactics. We must see what is actually happening and bring about change judicially and in practice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to table an oral amendment. I have the English text in front of me. After the phrase, “their own past archive productions produced or commissioned” should be added, “no later than December 1996”. Then it goes on, “by them under their own editorial control”. The background to this is quite simple, in December 1996 the WIPO Agreement was concluded. We want to ensure it only covers archive productions which were produced before December 1996.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, behind the somewhat barbaric name of the proposal for a regulation which we are debating this evening, unbundling access to the local loop, an expression moreover which is totally impenetrable for the average citizen, there lies a simple yet serious decision regarding the liberalisation of the local network of voice telephony and data transmission services. As we have heard this evening, for some in this House, the closing of the final chapter of a public monopoly can only lead to an automatic reduction in the costs of local communications and this can therefore only be positive for consumers. For others, including me, this is far from being quite so obvious and, above all, quite so automatic. If unregulated competition always leads to a permanent reduction in prices, and always benefits each and every consumer everywhere, this would have happened long ago. Moreover, the example of mobile telephony, which is completely open to competition, proves precisely the opposite. Real prices of calls from mobiles continue to be high and the transparency of costs and prices is far from being guaranteed. Between the hype and the reality there is not a divide but a chasm. Many citizens have fallen victim to this and are unable to pay their bill, and resort to declaring their mobile stolen. Nevertheless, I approve of unbundling, but simple, clear constraints need to be worked out in this area as well in order to define the limits, follow progress and lay down terms for the financing of the universal service. Our rapporteur and colleague, Mr Nicholas Clegg, has certainly done a lot of work, and I congratulate him on that. He has even been open to the arguments of his colleagues, and I thank him for that. But he is very liberal and so he has naturally rejected anything that could lead to a genuine universal service. He is more afraid of public monopolies than private monopolies. I hope, therefore, that the framework directive entitled ‘A Universal Service’, for which I was appointed rapporteur in July of last year on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, and which I now have to salvage despite the attempts of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, will enable us to redress the balance to some extent. Mr Clegg has correctly and very seriously set forth the Commission's proposal on unbundling from a technical standpoint. But I am sorry to say that, as I see it, he has not adequately responded to the longer term risk posed for the weaker and the more susceptible players in a deregulated system, and to the risk posed by private monopolies. This evening, I repeat once again that, for me, a public service must not be a sink for the market. It must be, and it can be, an objective in itself and, for us Europeans, a value and an asset for balanced and sustainable development. All things considered, Madam President, as the three European institutions are in agreement on uncoupling, I will not be more catholic than the Pope, and I shall therefore be voting in favour tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I hesitated before asking to speak again because I noticed that your press secretaries just handed you something and I thought perhaps you had received the latest news. If you have not, I would be grateful if I might briefly read out the following release from the German press agency timed at 17.53 hours. It says: several dozen members of the special police have joined with the demonstrators in Belgrade. All the police deployed to guard the state television building stormed by the protestors, have laid down their combat weapons and have allied themselves with the demonstrators. This was reported on Radio Index. Apparently at least one police station in the city centre has joined the protestors. That was the latest at 17.53 hours.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the other day, the Financial Times observed that the EU’s Middle East policy lies in ruins, and Le Monde complains about the EU’s impotence in the Middle East. Listening to the Council’s and the Commission’s representatives, one can understand why. Fine words and self-praise, but no action. It is so much more gratifying to listen to MEPs and leaders of the political groups demanding that action should be taken, that the options under the Association Agreement should be used and that, in particular, peace-keeping troops should be despatched. There is no question but that we must send tens of thousands of peace workers, both civilian and military, irrespective of whether the United States and Israel say we must not. We must not send them to Israel and we must not bomb Israeli towns. We must respond to the Palestinians’ request for troops to protect Palestine. There can be no impediment in international law to sending tens of thousands of military and civilian peace workers to Palestine at the request of the Palestinians. Why are you so afraid to act, Mr Solana and Mr Patten?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, Mr Sacconi, for an excellent report. The health and environmental problems associated with PVC are due to released chlorine, stabilisers and softeners. These products’ life cycles are long and they remain in the ecosystem for a long time, which means the extent of the problems for the environment can at present only be guessed at. The volume of PVC waste continues to grow, however. We need to undertake a study as quickly as possible, and, as Mr Seppänen quite rightly pointed out, one that is not just industry’s own investigation. We need an impartial study to be undertaken on the adverse effects of PVC, in order to be able to prevent a strain on the ecosystems and a deterioration in people’s health. The problems that exist with disposal have been mentioned here. The size of the problem is seen in the fact that the incineration of PVC can produce even more hazardous waste than that represented by the original quantity of waste, and, because it remains in the ecosystem so long, a landfill site is also a poor option for the disposal of this sort of waste. We therefore need a proper investigation into the matter. I do not think we can simply put our trust in industry’s own voluntary agreements. As we have already observed, measures must be put in place after studies have been carried out, resulting in a ban on hazardous substances. For this we shall need legislation at European level. As European legislators we must bear in mind the importance of the health of our citizens and the protection of the diversity of nature.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the sinking of the Kursk has – mainly as a result of Russia’s inadequate response – brought home to us the disastrous heritage of 70 years of Soviet power. The golden era of Communist nomenclature has generated a climate of such contempt towards people in the old Soviet Union, with so few standing a chance of survival in the present day, that this is why we are now facing this terrible disaster. This is at the heart of our resolution. In my opinion, the fact that the Group is now tabling amendments which attempt to divert the attention away from this disaster by introducing a regional problem of a completely different nature displays very little taste indeed. It is, in fact, downright impudent. The European Union and European Parliament will need to put their foot down when it comes to the Kursk salvage operation. We will need to be involved in these operations, partly on humanitarian grounds. The recovery of the Kursk also highlights another problem, namely that of a large number of obsolete nuclear submarines in Russia, as well as the nuclear waste in the same northern region. The European Union and European Parliament will need to make it clear that it is in Europe’s general interest, and as such in that of Russia, to lay this matter to rest sooner rather than later, firstly on behalf of the relatives, whom we offer our deepest sympathy, and secondly for the benefit of the nuclear situation in Europe. This is what our resolution is about.

Political group: PPE-DE