GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Ferber, on his report, although I did not agree with everything and voted – against his recommendation – for Amendment No 2 and against Amendment No 8 of his draft resolution. I have done so with great conviction because I am of the view that we as the European Parliament do not send out a political signal or pre-empt a political decision by adopting the Secretary-General’s proposal (and filling 35 vacancies in the language sector) but accomplish this by doing the exact opposite. As long as the House rules on language use are not amended, the candidate countries and ourselves can assume that the language arrangement will stay as it is, that is to say: first of all, that each MEP can use his own language at official meetings. Secondly, that each MEP has documents in his language at his disposal. Thirdly, that we in this way are not only treating the Members equally but above all, the citizens we represent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, those of us who represent Scotland in this House were very grateful when this year the Parliament decided to make its office in Edinburgh permanent. The Commission has long had an office there. The Commissioner has mentioned the importance of national regions, as well as the states, in its communication policy. I am sorry to say that this week it has been announced that The Scotsman newspaper is closing down the office of its Brussels and European correspondent. It is rumoured that BBC Scotland is about to remove its special correspondent from Brussels. That would be a disaster. It is not just the Commission and Parliament which need to think about their role. Our own media also need to look seriously at the problem of adequately reporting to their citizens the issues of Europe. May I mention one other sad case, which is of importance in the area of information and communication. I want to draw attention, yet again, to the case of the Italian language lecturers. New developments in the case have shown that the quality of openness in information and communication by the Commission on this sort of issue leaves much to be desired. In these proceedings it is vital that the interested parties are fully informed by the Commission, but the practice fails to honour that ideal. There has been some evidence this week that the former Commission has actively misled parties in cases of this kind. During the current Parliament, I have had a number of assurances that the Commission is serious about upholding rights derived from Community law on behalf of lecturers in all issues involving non-discrimination. That really must be taken seriously. It is a point about openness, about being ready to communicate what is going on and about informing people how seriously we take rights arising from Community law and how seriously we take the need to demonstrate to our citizens and our public the importance of what is accomplished here. I am glad that the Commission and Parliament have helped to make information available in Scotland and I wish our own media would do likewise.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I regret having to take the floor in regard to Mr Kuhne’s report, but this concerns a very serious course of events. This report, which is about the discharge of Parliament’s 1998 budget, as you all know, contains a paragraph 18 and a sixth indent. This sixth indent concerns our group. There was an agreement – and all the group chairmen will confirm this – between the group chairmen that we would not address concrete cases relating to individual groups in the report, but that in future we will jointly endeavour to tackle any problems that may arise. So in view of the wording in the report, I tabled a compromise amendment on behalf of my group, and it was indicated to me a few days ago that the rapporteur would approve that compromise. We thereupon refrained from tabling an amendment that also refers to problems in regard to the Socialist Group. I now hear that the Socialist Group evidently will not endorse our Amendment No 10, tabled in my name. Let me state quite plainly, in all seriousness and with great regret, that this means the agreement between group chairmen was given up. Fair play was given up! Let me also say that our group is disappointed, not just I personally but the entire group. If the Socialist Group does not support compromise Amendment No 10 – and that is up to the group – then let me tell you that this will be a very grave decision it is taking here today. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Although there is no evidence to suggest that airlines operate without adequate insurance, we agree that making the requirements more transparent is a positive move. However, our continued support for the draft regulation depends on the Commission addressing the major concerns that the rapporteur raised in his speech last night. In particular the Commission must clarify how the rules relating to overflying will be applied in practice. The answers given to the committee on this matter suggest that this issue has not been adequately thought through. We cannot support draft legislation which cannot be properly and consistently applied and unless the Commission can provide satisfactory answers to how the legislation will apply to aircraft diverting into European airspace in unforeseeable circumstances or how the sector is to obtain cover for war and terrorism, we shall not be able to continue to support the proposals. Finally, we must insist that the Commission provides a full business impact assessment before this report returns for its second reading. Parliament cannot legislate without knowing the effect that its actions would have on European businesses and a fragile aviation industry.

Political group: PPE-DE
First of all, the draft legislative resolution receives my unqualified support. It is clear that Directive 94/47 has not had the desired effect. A review is therefore necessary, because practice has shown that unfortunately, consumers are still often the victims of fraud within this market. On the basis of current legislation, the regulations are too minimal to be able to easily distinguish fraudsters and cowboys from serious timeshare operators, to whom this situation is also detrimental. In order to establish the difference between the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’, I have tabled an amendment on the basis of which, in the event of a dispute, the court local to the consumer should always be declared competent. Such a provision has a deterrent effect on unscrupulous timeshare operators and removes the victims' fears about having to take the matter to court in a foreign country. My amendment, which is, in fact, backed by the Organisation for Timeshare in Europe, has, to my great regret, not received sufficient support from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The above is partly substantiated by Commissioner Byrne in his replies during the debate and is therefore worth considering when drafting the requested evaluation or new legislation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to make three points which could be of interest in the context of Konrad Schwaiger's report. Firstly, as you will see from the additional amendments which have now been proposed for this week, there is a great deal of interest in this issue within the House, and this interest generally tends to focus on a small number of themes. So my first question is this: are the TRIPs negotiations really all that promising? Should they continue as before, or is it time for a review? Should more be done in the field of agriculture? How can effective consumer protection be safeguarded? There are many other questions as well. I would also like to ask you about the Built-In Agenda, which is now being negotiated and which is due for review in March. How great, in reality, are the differences between the parties negotiating on the Built-In Agenda? What impact is the agricultural crisis in Europe having on these negotiations, and how far have the negotiations progressed overall? Or is it more a question of business as usual? Are we simply carrying on as if nothing has happened? The second point which I should like to raise is this, you have produced a document which indicates that you would like to see greater flexibility in the forthcoming WTO negotiations. Flexibility is a very broad term. I greatly welcomed this document but I am sure that it will spark off many political discussions in this House as well. You can interpret it in any number of ways, so let me put a few questions to you. Does this document signal a move away from the European Union's previous strategy, which, until now, has been based on the principle that we have always had, and wanted to have, a comprehensive role, which has included competition and investment, for example, but also all the ‘soft’ issues such as social standards, labour standards, and progress on environmental issues? Does this document signal a move away from that? Does it mean that you will need a new negotiating mandate or is the old one enough? What impact will this have on cooperation with the European Parliament? In this context, I am most grateful to Mr Clegg for pointing out, yet again, that Article 133 is not acceptable to us in its current form. This is nothing new to you, and we are on the same side here, but the Council is listening, and perhaps the Council will be prepared, one day, to introduce an amendment with us. The third point I would like to make is as follows: you met Mr Bob Soellig in the United States. I gather from the press that the mood of the meeting was very good, which is not surprising given that you are old friends, so in that sense I hope we can look forward to a rosier future in transatlantic relations. What are your specific expectations, however, of these good relations with regard to the fresh negotiations taking place within the WTO framework? Will there be positive signals, and will these positive signals mean that in June or July we will have a negotiating strategy which will take us to Qatar? And will this negotiating strategy include the developing countries as well?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, tomorrow’s vote will be a litmus test of Parliament’s responsibility and credibility. The main point, for us, is liability and compulsory insurance. If genetic engineering is as risk-free as the industry and Mr Liese insist, then why is there such huge resistance to strict liability? We too want general environmental liability, but we know that no provision is made for the corresponding liability for genetic technology or for general liability in the Commission proposal, which is why we have proposed compromise Amendment No 45, containing just that. Anything else would amount to hiding behind a long-term policy of wait-and-see and endless prevarication. It is ridiculous to say that all we are asking is that the Commission should do this by the year 2001. What will happen if it does not do so? What will happen if horizontal environmental liability does not properly cover the area of genetic technology or, Mrs Wallström, as you suggest, only covers the Natura 2000 areas? The second main point for us is the ban on antibiotic-resistant genes. We need a clear ban here. I cannot understand, Mr Bowe, why you said that we will take a softer line tomorrow. Is that your sop to the genetic engineering industry? I think that it is quite clear – as scientific studies have proven – that more and more human pathogens are becoming resistant and it would be a disaster if antibiotics were to be permanently lost as a form of treatment. My last point concerns genetic contamination. I think that we need a clear commitment here on the part of the Member States and I hope that tomorrow’s vote will send out a clear signal on environmental and consumer protection and that tomorrow will not be a black day in the history of environmental and consumer protection.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteurs, I would briefly like to point out, in relation to the reports that we are currently debating, and as we have seen previously, that we are holding a great debate with an important future in terms of the construction of Europe and also the construction of an enlarged Europe. We are dealing with Funds which were established at a particular moment when our objectives involved a policy of economic and social cohesion. On the one hand, this policy has clearly been successful but, on the other, we also see that differences remain, as the reports demonstrate. Does this mean that this policy has failed? I would say rather that it means that the policy is not only successful for the cohesion countries, for the poorest regions which are receiving significant aid, but also for other regions, in the wealthy countries, which do not receive the aid. In the end there is widespread movement throughout Europe and, by means of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, those regions of the richer countries end up benefiting from the aid, because technologies are being bought, because investments are being made by those countries in which technological progress is being made. That is perhaps the reason why the differences are being maintained, after the large amounts of aid and the great investments which have been carried out through the Cohesion Fund. We are now facing the problems relating to enlargement. Does the Cohesion Fund need to be modified? Will the poorer regions stop receiving it? Are the States which have so far been receiving aid going to stop doing so in favour of the new States? I believe that this is currently the great challenge for the Commissioner and for Parliament. I believe that the aid must be maintained, that we have to be imaginative and must ensure that the Funds continue to reach all the regions. Otherwise, the differences will increase. We must make an effort to ensure that the enlargement countries also become economic motors which will allow this policy of economic and social cohesion to eventually lead to a much more just and free Europe. We have seen recent examples of the results of poverty and fanaticism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commissioner obviously wanted to say something just now, and perhaps I can ask him a question at the same time. I fully endorse the proposals that Mr Prodi has outlined here. What would interest me is this: what will be the institutional framework for all this? You mentioned the financial instruments and the treaties with neighbouring countries. However, my question to the President or the Commissioner is this: are any specific institutional arrangements required? Theoretically, after all, there is still the European Conference. There are various possibilities. In connection with the Mediterranean region, we have discussed the option of establishing closer parliamentary cooperation as well. We must not leave this in abeyance, and we must also ensure that the responsibility is clarified within the Commission, for what we are dealing with here, really, is an interim phase between normal traditional foreign policy and integration in the European Union. In my view, this interim phase must be defined very precisely, and the Commission should submit specific proposals to deal with it, setting out detailed arrangements and describing which institutions are involved. Will the European Conference be revived? Will there be specific responsibility within the Commission for this area of cooperation? Will it remain with Commissioner Patten? These are the questions that interest me. Perhaps you could explain the situation in more detail. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
I voted against the entire report – which was nonetheless adopted on the basis of 359 votes in favour, 79 against and 50 abstentions – because it would entail a relaxation of the Stability and Growth Pact and undermine the Swedish constitution. I voted in favour of item 5 to the effect that a possible introduction of the euro should be subject to a referendum. Sweden will not be forced to enter into economic and monetary union if the majority of voters support the Swedish krona. It is worth noting that this item was adopted on the basis of 486 votes in favour, 3 against and 8 abstentions. I voted in favour of removing item 4, that is to say against the Stability and Growth Pact’s being implemented in ‘a more flexible way’. In practice, this item would entail a relaxation of the objective criteria in favour of vaguer, politically negotiable criteria. Unfortunately, this item remained in place. The euro requires clear and stable rules. The decision means a reduction in confidence in the euro as a currency. I voted against item 10 to the effect that EC law takes precedence over Swedish law, even before Swedish legislation has been amended. The purpose of this item is to make it possible to introduce the euro as a currency without Swedish legislation’s having been amended, that is to say before the elections to the Swedish Parliament in 2006. The item would mean that the rules governing the way in which the Swedish constitution is amended would be circumvented by EC law. - Dos Santos report (A5-0018/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is dreadful to derive beauty from animal suffering. Animal tests should only take place as an absolute necessity, and that is not happening in the case of cosmetics. This is why a ban on both sales and testing should be introduced. The sooner the better. It is unfortunate that compromises are required in this respect. Labelling on all products tested on animals must now become compulsory with immediate effect. It is of major importance for industry, science and the government to invest more in alternative methods, as far too little use is still being made of current knowledge due to this approach. The validation procedures must be accelerated. Forty thousand animals annually are forty thousand animals too many. The replacement, reduction and refinement of animal tests are a question of civilisation. Animals are far too beautiful to be treated so dreadfully.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to add my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, and members of other groups who have helped steer us towards what hopefully will be a successful vote tomorrow. We have heard that provision varies from Member State to Member State in terms of the protection afforded to temporary agency workers. That is indeed the case and that justifies the laying down of a basic framework of protection for temporary workers throughout the European Union, but I would also underline that it will include the accession countries. The numbers of such workers are increasing in those countries, but as far as I am aware they have no existing protection for temporary agency workers. My second point is that tonight we are pursuing a strategy which has been under way since 1997, when we adopted the employment strategy at European Union level. In the adaptability pillar of that strategy, to which all Member States have signed up, we agreed to strike a balance between flexibility for companies, of all shapes and sizes, and a degree of security for the workers working within, and moving between, those enterprises. We have already dealt with that in relation to the earlier proposals on part-time work and on fixed-term contract working. We were warned at the time of the part-working directive that it would cost hundreds of thousands of part-time jobs, particularly for women workers within the European Union. We now have the evidence and the opposite is the case, because part-time work has come to be seen as a positive option. What we are working on now will mean that temporary agency work will also become a positive option in the future. We are often told that it is already a positive option, and that many people want to be temporary agency workers. Only 10% of the 61,000 temporary agency workers in my own region say that they are temporary agency workers by choice. We can increase that percentage quite significantly if we get it right and bring this proposal to a successful conclusion. We should pursue that balance between flexibility and security. Mr Harbour says we have not done it yet but I would say to him that this is the first stage. This is the opening gambit and not the end game. This is a codecision dossier. We have a long way to go, through common position, through second reading and no doubt into conciliation. We can continue to pursue that balance between flexibility and security. In my own group, two issues have been of great importance at this first reading stage. One is 'day one comparability'. I therefore hope that Amendment No 42 will be carried tomorrow. The second is the comparator. To whom is the temporary agency worker compared in terms of pay and basic employment conditions? None of the potential solutions we currently have on paper are that elegant, but they get us through first reading and I am sure we will be getting back to that at the common position and second reading stages.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I hope you will not penalise my speaking time if I add my protest to that of Mr Varela. As Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, I am fed up with the Committee's items being kicked around on the agenda from one day to the next. It was on the agenda for this morning's debate and here we are now, with half the members of the Committee who have asked to speak in the debate having to come back this evening. What way is this to organise diaries? Firstly, I congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent own-initiative report. It was Mr Varela's idea that the Fisheries Committee should conduct in-depth investigations into some of the major species of fish, and what could be more appropriate than starting with tuna, a species of global importance now worth in excess of USD 2 billion per year. World production of canned tuna is over two million tonnes a year, while the trade in fresh tuna is also burgeoning. We held a special hearing in our Committee on this issue, with many industry experts giving evidence. In addition, the Sustainable Development Intergroup organised a seminar in Brussels last November entitled 'Tuna Fleet and Industry: Prospects for the Future', at which we had a wide range of international speakers. I wish to concentrate on one important aspect of the report, namely the AIDCP – or Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program – to which the EU is a signatory, as is the United States and most of the tuna-producing nations of Central and South America. It is the most reliable method for ensuring that tuna is dolphin safe. I am grateful to Mr Varela for highlighting this in his report in a very positive way. He said in his report, 'the system for protecting dolphins in purse-seine fisheries established by the AIDCP, ... is far removed from other private certification schemes which have hitherto been introduced.' I thoroughly endorse that analysis. One of these private certification schemes, promoted by the Californian NGO Earth Island, has dominated the canned tuna market for some years. It is estimated that over 97% of all canned tuna in Europe carries their 'dolphin safe' label. However, their 'dolphin safe' label is not turtle safe or shark safe. The method of fishing supported by Earth Island, in its current form, causes the death of countless turtles, sharks and other species and also kills thousands of young yellowfin tuna, discarded dead into the sea because they are below marketable weight. I very much endorse the support that Mr Varela's report has given to the AIDCP label and hope the Commission will push for this label to be used exclusively on canned tuna in the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE