GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, we are being asked to express our views on a subject which in itself involves a very broad spectrum of activities. It is easy to talk about the right to asylum pure and simple, holding it up as a sacred principle, and it is all the more clearly sacred at this sensitive moment when the world is shaken by such dramatic events; solidarity and goodwill are the feelings that we all, in our bewilderment, feel we want to appeal to so that we can build new, better structures between people, worlds and cultures. It is also clear, however, that, right now, we must not deviate from the objective of achieving tangible situations and establishing practical prospects that are closely linked to reality. In the proposal for a directive, as Mr Schmitt has already mentioned, there are some – in our view – complex concepts that conflict with the direction we had embarked on in our work last year and open up certain political problems that, in our opinion, are quite serious. Is it right, for instance, to accept that a third country that is considered safe should always be so regardless of the tangible fact that links it to the asylum seeker? Or that a manifestly unfounded application should, even so, always give rise to a complicated, expensive verification procedure? It goes without saying that certainty on this is in the clear interests both of those who have serious grounds for seeking protection and of the host country itself. I do not want to go into the legal and philosophical concept of what constitutes being manifestly unfounded, but on matters which are now more sensitive than ever such as that addressed by the Watson report, we must show our determination to build without putting up obstacles, and to help without negative or even destructive effects on our social systems. Therefore, when we look at the wording on the extension of the right to asylum, the fast-track procedure and the appeals procedure, I think that, on careful analysis, my doubts will be widely shared.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted in favour of this report, together with my group, because I believe that, overall, the cohesion policy is a good one. We must, however, note that EU State primacy has meant that it is the States with no significant regional problems that have benefited most of all, such as Ireland and Portugal. Furthermore, the concept of region, which is often technocratic, applies to situations that are often entirely different from a human perspective. Nations such as Catalonia and the Basque Country, therefore, often contain regions which are not recognised as such by the respective States that could benefit from these funds and are unfairly excluded. Lastly, it should be pointed out that cross-border policy not only brings together different nations, but sometimes also brings together fragments of the same nation that have been unjustly separated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, first of all I should like to thank my fellow Member, Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, for his efforts, particularly with regard to consultation: he took a good number of our proposals and amendments into consideration. The JRC’s nuclear activities present us, however, with a twofold problem: that of reducing this type of activity, on the agenda now more than at the time the JRC was set up under the aegis of Euratom, and the problem of the historical liabilities from nuclear activities involving the matter of decommissioning, at an estimated cost of more than EUR 500 million, all told, though there is every possibility that this gross figure has been underestimated, as is generally the case in nuclear matters. Moreover, although four JRC sites are concerned (Ispra, Karlsruhe, Vienna and Petten), there are still six of the fifteen Member States (Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Austria) that do not benefit from this research. This whole business has a past history, a historical context which, as the very title of the report indicates, merits serious analysis, both of the origin of the research and of the transfers effected from various countries to the JRC. This is why, in the first place, we are not in favour of dealing with the problem of cost as a side issue. Using appropriations that have not been used may prove an incentive not to use all research appropriations in order to be able to invest them in decommissioning. Secondly, a serious reassessment must be made of the research appropriations and the cost of research in relation to decommissioning and of the consequent impact on the cost of nuclear energy, which must also be re-evaluated. Thirdly, we are therefore in favour of Kathalijne Buitenweg’s proposal to set up a specific budget line and to determine this by a trialogue. We should like, however, to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that problems exist not only in terms of the budget, but there are also technical problems, and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has useful points to make in this trialogue. Decommissioning operations are not compatible with the principle of annual budget payments and all the countries have appropriate internal procedures. The objective of the trialogue is therefore to reach an agreement between the three institutions on an appropriate regulation which will serve as a legal basis for financing the operations. Only on this condition, which must lead us to make proposals for the 2001 budget, will we accept the interim measures for the current budget.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, 11 out of the 15 EU countries recognise the right of resale. However, it is in force only in eight countries, and this is with varying degrees of success. The right of resale is not recognised in the legislation of Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Outside the European Union, neither Switzerland nor the United States recognise the right of resale. At first sight, establishing a legislative text concerning the right of resale would seem to be justified by a desire for equity and in order to benefit creative artists. In fact, the resale right does not benefit artists, quite the contrary: it hinders the market which should be dynamic and be able to grow with a minimum of restrictions. Consumer dynamics and sales potential are matters of concern to living artists who discern an increase in their market value and reassessment of their work. The resale right gives rise to complicated court cases, which are truly costly compared with the often modest sums involved, which generally do not reach the beneficiary. It entails additional administrative tasks, which serve to fuel criticism of European standards. It penalises the efforts of galleries who should be focussing on helping artists. It gives rise to fear, creates extra costs and administrative hassles for well-meaning potential buyers. And on occasion, it can lead to absurd situations: given that the right of resale is calculated on the basis of the resale price, in the event of depreciation transferring a work of art is more lucrative than actually creating one. Is it therefore necessary to extend this legislative text to the countries who do not want it – I am referring here to the United Kingdom which is currently at the top of the European art market – if to do so would be to threaten their competitiveness?

Political group: PPE-DE
France, Germany and Great Britain, together with the USA, are the main arms dealers feeding the planet’s conflicts: in Africa, where 10 states are at war, and in Asia, between India and Pakistan. The European states have sold arms to Indonesia, whose army is implicated in the massacres in Timor and the Moluccas. France is selling helicopters to Turkey, which is waging war against the Kurdish people, and aircraft to China and Taiwan, not to mention the scandal of the famous Taiwan frigates. In the recent past, France was an accomplice to the genocide in Rwanda by delivering any amount of small arms to the regime perpetrating the massacres. No one has yet insisted that the European Union and France answer for that. The resolution is not seeking to reduce arms sales radically to promote a policy of disarmament, but just to regulate them in order to guarantee greater profits for the industrial groups. There is no such thing as a bloodless war. There are only wars that kill. This hypocritical resolution seeks the implementation of a ‘European code of conduct’ while simultaneously declaring that the defence industry is ‘economically and strategically important for the EU’.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as rapporteur for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, allow me to come straight to the points that are causing my committee the most concern. It is almost as if the Commission has forgotten that we committed ourselves to establishing full employment again in the European Union, when we were in Lisbon, which is something President Chirac emphasised again before this House only this morning. How else are we to explain the fact that of all the budget headings, it is the one for local commitment for employment that the Commission wants to completely do away with? I am appalled by the idea, and have every right to be, given that only in April, the Commission issued a statement highlighting the importance of the local dimension to Europe’s employment strategy. This budget heading was one of Parliament’s initiatives. We wanted more money for employment and we wanted to gather more experience of similar projects over three years so as to be able to subsequently arrive at a legal basis. Hence there are, of course, no possible circumstances under which we would endorse the Commission’s decision on this, simply because, as a Commission, you have run out of ideas at the moment for promoting innovative measures in the Social Fund. We very much hope that the Council will side with Parliament in this matter, and that we will in fact be able to retain this employment initiative. It is equally unacceptable and completely incomprehensible that the Commission wants to make drastic cutbacks of 32% and 18% respectively in the budget headings for the action plans against social exclusion and discrimination, even though social coherence in the European Union is precisely what we are always calling for, and only this morning we again had an extensive debate on the anti-discrimination package. I believe the Commission knows full well that we have no intention of supporting this cutback, and here too we are relying on the joint discussions. At any event, I hope to see some movement from the Council and the Commission with regard to the points I have mentioned. The same goes for the non-governmental organisations and the budgetary line for health protection in the workplace.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Schmid in my capacity as a member of the Temporary Committee on Echelon for his extensive, far-reaching endeavours in collecting and organising a truly impressive mass of highly technical information. The report and its extensive conclusions and recommendations section, in particular, represent a major contribution on the part of Parliament to the protection of European citizens’ and companies’ freedom. The main results have already been presented by Mr Schmid and so I will not go back over that ground in my speech, although not all the conclusions are consistent with some of the information given in the report, as Mr Di Lello pointed out. To increase the effectiveness of the report and with a view to the protection of citizens’ privacy, in particular, as well as companies, may I suggest to Mr Schmid, once again, and to the Members that they include some amendments tabled by Mr Di Lello and others, specifically Amendments Nos 12, 20, 21, 22 and 30. These amendments have been rejected by the temporary committee but I believe this was purely out of concern for practicality. It has, in fact, been maintained that a form of huge-scale, global non-differentiating interception such as Echelon, based solely on recognition of a number of keywords and using search engines, would be invaluable for combating terrorism and crime. Now, the amendments which I recommend should be put to the vote state, on the other hand, clearly – and rightly so – that these interceptions are contrary to the principle of legality and proportionality which should govern every operation compromising the confidentiality of communications, and therefore cannot be permitted. It may be that, in the future, we will have to amend the laws in question in line with the development of information technology but, as things stand at the moment, this is the situation. Including the amendments cited in the Schmid report would be a decisive contribution towards ensuring that the European citizens feel that their interests are fully represented and that the Unions’ institutions do not lose credibility as a result of the report.

Political group: PSE
The sinking of the Prestige oil tanker off the coast of Galicia on 19 November 2002 caused a huge ecological and economic disaster, to which, I am very glad to say, Parliament devoted its full attention from the beginning. A Parliamentary delegation, of which I was a member, travelled to Galicia in March of this year and observed the scale of the disaster at first hand. I therefore share the concerns expressed by the Commission and by the Members of this House about maritime safety. I appeal to all parties to make firm commitments in the vital area of maritime safety, since the quality and safety of vessels sailing in European waters, and of European vessels the world over, depends on them, as does protecting the coasts and citizens of Europe from further disasters. Safety is down to us all and demands all our commitment! I am speaking, moreover, as Member for a region where many of the shipping lanes running between the Americas and Europe come together, and which is thus extremely vulnerable to this type of disaster. The island of Porto Santo has already suffered the terrible consequences of such accidents. Let us hope that these measures will mean that my region or any other will experience them NEVER AGAIN.

Political group: PPE-DE
The aggressive stand taken by the Americans on the International Criminal Court is the product of its warmongering, imperialist plans. It is perfectly consistent with its general attitude towards the UN which, when it has trouble getting it to fall in with its plans, it ignores completely. Thus, having adopted a bill granting immunity to American personnel, even if they commit war crimes or genocide, it is now coercing various countries into signing bilateral agreements containing immunity clauses. Just what is the so-called international community doing in the face of this galling provocation? The UN has rushed in to satisfy the Americans by granting them immunity for their crimes for at least a year and by excluding the crime of attack from the jurisdiction of the ICC. The ΕU remains firmly pro-Atlantic, refusing to take a stand on the rushed plans for war against Iraq, one member (England) is actively involved in preparing for war and 3 other Member States have come out openly in favour of war, with no reaction whatsoever on the part of the ΕU. In view of the foregoing, as members of the Communist Party of Greece, we consider that the ΕU's interest in the ICC, as expressed in the resolution put to the vote, is hypocritical and is just part of the game of standoff between the imperialist powers as they squabble over the spoils and we shall not be voting in favour of it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, scarcely less important than passing wise laws is seeing that they are actually implemented and it is, therefore, encouraging to read the Commission's report, which my report addresses. However, as my report suggests, there is a real problem about the non-compliance with Community law among big states. The worst example – which is cited in the explanatory statement – concerns the treatment by the Italian State of a group of university lecturers, who, after 14 years, have still not had their rights enforced, despite two resolutions by this House. I have just received information that, despite the European Commission's decision to ask the European Court of Justice to impose fines of EUR 309 750 a day, the Italian Parliament has just passed legislation which enhances the illegal discrimination against these citizens. I find this outrageous. I hope the House will support my report. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0097/2004) by Gerhard Schmid, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on cooperation in the European Union on preparedness and response to biological and chemical agent attacks (health security) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0104/2004) by Marco Cappato, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the first report by the Commission on the implementation of the directive on data protection (Directive 95/46/EC) Before the vote:

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am deputising for Mr Mauro, the author of the resolution. The escalation of the conflict in northern Uganda is reaching unprecedented levels and is causing a genuine humanitarian crisis. Approximately a million people have been displaced in Acholiland and in the Lango and Iteso regions. At the beginning of the year, the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative seemed to have achieved unmatchable results. A number of meetings were held between the religious leaders and the rebels; a presidential peace commission was even set up with many responsibilities; the LRA and the government called for a cease-fire. In May, for the first time, the Consultative Group Meeting discussed the crisis in northern Uganda as a national issue, and there were substantial contributions from civil society. Despite these small rays of hope, the conflict has been deteriorating severely over the past two months. For the first time since the start of this distressing affair, rebel activity has intensified and has carried on for over six months, breaking the traditional mould of cycles of violence which initially took the form of brief raids rather than permanent conflict. Recently, it has become clear from the LRA’s order to attack Catholic missions that the Sudanese Government has renewed its support for the LRA, providing sophisticated heavy armaments. Joseph Kony, the leader of the so-called Lord’s Resistance Army, spoke again last Monday, telling his men to kill mercilessly anyone who comes within range, including the elderly and children, to spare only pregnant women, to kill priests and missionaries in cold blood and to beat up nuns in cold blood. The crazy orders were given over the frequency used by the network of two-way radios belonging to the Catholic missions of northern Uganda. Indeed, the rebels are able to use the same two-way radios in their internal communications as those used by missionaries for they have plundered numerous Catholic parish churches in recent months. Moreover, despite the fact that the humanitarian situation is getting worse and that rebel activity is clearly on the increase, the Ugandan Government has announced that the situation is still under control. In this regard, I must highlight the prodigious efforts of the European Commission to help these people, not least through monitoring in the field. At this confusing time, marked by violence, terror and war, the real danger is that of resorting to weapon-power as the only way of addressing this serious situation. Moreover, there is also the risk that the international community and citizens will hide behind indifference, treating this disaster as the concern of the Acholi people alone. We have to take notice of the cries of the people and the leaders of Acholiland: sadly, their story has already proven that peace can never be achieved by forcing a people into submission.

Political group: PPE-DE
The rapporteur accepts the basis of the Commission proposal aimed at bringing the current Regulation No 2081/92 into line with the agreement under the WTO on trade-related property rights (TRIPS, 1994). After supporting the Commission’s position, which it considers to be crucial to a food quality policy and to combat any attempt to sow confusion amongst consumers, when discussing Protected Designations of Origins (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs), the report overlooks some contradictions and tables some amendments that give rise to doubts. For example, with regard to the procedure for cancelling the Community registration of a PDO or a PGI, the report overlooks the fact that sometimes a PDO or a PGI is not only private property; it can also be the property of a particular community or region due to the characteristics of its production or of the raw material used. There should therefore be safeguards to ensure that the voice of local institutional bodies is heard in these situations. We must also take account of the relationship between the trademark and the PDO, so as to safeguard any possible move by a trademark with regional characteristics, which cannot be produced in another region or country. In Portugal, this problem has already arisen, in the case of ‘Limiano’ cheese. Hence our abstention from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the European Union's Sixth Framework Programme covers high-priority areas and areas of pioneering research from which we expect quantum leaps in science. I should like to draw your attention to the pioneering area of research into the human genome. This research is expected to have future applications in four areas of medicine: first, hereditary illnesses, secondly, the most common fatal illnesses, namely cancer, cardio-vascular and degenerative neural illnesses, thirdly, an understanding of the mechanics of various illnesses, which will lead to new, more efficient treatment and drugs and, fourthly, the prevention of disease. New knowledge about human genetics will help us understand at which points genetic dynamics are vulnerable and open to environmental factors and pressure and the way in which we live, thereby allowing us to develop new strategies for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the illnesses which I have already mentioned. Stem cell research may well have new applications in treating illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, leukaemia and many others. However, the boundaries on research in these fields must be marked out if we are to avoid ethical problems. This was the point of the amendment which I tabled together with Mr Nisticò and Mr Purvis. This amendment will allow the pioneering research which I have described to progress while striking the balance needed in order to avoid ethical problems. So we can look forward to the beneficial medical applications which this research promises. I trust that the European Parliament will support the line being marked out and strike the right balance between progress and ethical considerations.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I proposed two amendments to this report. One – Amendment No 20 – unfortunately failed to get through. I am pleased that Amendment No 21 did. The first amendment was to make sure that national information centres or relevant authorities or police forces, if offered information, would agree to their use in legal proceedings in the Member State where the football fan was arrested. I tabled this because Mark Forrester, my constituent, was convicted in Belgium after the Euro 2000 match, even though the British Intelligence Service offered video evidence to the Belgian authorities showing him walking away from the problems and the violence. That is why I tabled this amendment and indeed voted for it. Unfortunately the Belgian authorities refused to use that. I was hoping that this report would lay down a marker to say that the authorities ought to be able to use information given by national information centres to other Member States. That would allow us to clamp down on real football hooligans; football fans who are innocent would not be caught in a trap.

Political group: ELDR