GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Fodé Sylla, this House gave you the very clear brief of examining whether and to what extent fundamental rights are being upheld in the Member States of the European Union. What you have delivered is unfortunately an ideological wish list, a shopping list of left-wing ideologies. I say ‘unfortunately’ because it was an important and substantial report. We can discuss the issues you raise in it, and we can be for them or against them, but the point is that they do not belong in the report about fundamental rights and respect for these rights in the European Union. For that reason, and as a matter of principle we, in the Group of the European People’s Party , will vote against this report. You also, however, criticise a number of Member States, and as a rule you do so unfairly. You have quite simply failed to inform yourself adequately about the real situation or you are criticising because the rules they have in place do not conform with your ideological preconceptions. We reject the criticism – and that includes your criticism of Austria – because it is quite unjustified, and we therefore reject your report for these reasons as well. Thirdly, I reject the report on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party because we do not support your substantive demands. These range from the expansion of the right of asylum, to access to education and healthcare for illegal immigrants, the regularisation of the status of illegal immigrants, and recognition of the equality of all partnerships in the EU – we reject all these demands unequivocally. Finally, we reject the report outright because of your demand that homosexual couples be given the right to adopt children. You can think what you like about such partnerships: I tolerate them, but in the interests of the children, we must ensure that such a demand is never put into practice. The Group of the European People’s Party resolutely rejects your report for all the reasons I have stated and will vote against it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, hundreds of thousands of healthy animals are being killed in the name of export. People in my country no longer accept this. Other sectors of the economy too have ground to a halt. The damage caused in those sectors is many times more serious. Commissioner Byrne’s attitude is brutally inadequate. Mr Byrne should have taken the initiative to vaccinate animals in zoos. Instead, he did nothing. Mr Byrne could have taken the initiative to vaccinate rare animals roaming freely. Ministers Künast and Brinkhorst took the initiative instead. Mr Byrne should have taken the initiative in respect of generous buffer vaccination. Export interests are not sacrosanct. Let the affected countries vaccinate their animals to their heart’s content and not sacrifice animals unnecessarily. Finally, I should like to urge the Commission to reduce the time limit for the transport of live cattle from 30 hours to a maximum of 4 hours. In that way, a future outbreak of foot-and-mouth would be restricted to one area, rather than affect half of Europe, as is currently the case.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the European Parliament’s adoption today of the new resolution on the Draft European Constitution is a tacit recognition that it was wrong to ask the Italian Presidency to achieve the impossible, which is what it did in the proposal that we adopted in December. The European Parliament would grow in stature if it were to acknowledge this explicitly, but no one is perfect. It also goes without saying that the European Parliament should at least examine the written results of the Naples Conclave before expressing an opinion on their value, which it has just done, because these written results were submitted to the Heads of State or Government by the Italian Presidency. I deplore the fact that in almost two months, Parliament still has not considered doing so. Having said this, the Draft Constitution remains a bad and dangerous initiative and I still do not see any reason therefore to hope that it will be adopted at either Easter or Trinity. That is why I voted against.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, since these are very difficult reports and it is not easy to balance the different interests. I agree with them that our main concern must be attention to and clear information for patients. Neither must we forget what the honourable Member said in relation to the budget of the Agency and the different agencies. This is a restrictive budget, and in the end those of us who continue to say that the European Union’s general budget is very low if it is to confront enlargement and the spending the new countries will generate will be proved right. Since I do not have much time, Mr President, I would like to stress certain aspects of the report: firstly, the guarantee that the officials, experts and authors of reports do not have financial or any other type of interest in the pharmaceutical industry. Secondly, something that has been said here on many occasions, the clear differentiation between publicity and information. The free database with different levels for users, health staff, companies and others is all very well. However, as has also been said here, not everybody has access to the Internet and not everybody knows English and the Member States will have to provide patients with other important types of information so that they can decide between effectiveness, side effects and counter-indications. A system of penalties for holders of authorisations who fail to comply with the directive, making the actions of the holder in question public. And an increase – as the rapporteurs have said – in the monitoring of pharmaceuticals, because the effects of medication do not end with authorisation, and furthermore there must be continued monitoring. Finally, Mr President, access to generic medications that reduce pharmaceutical spending should be facilitated and furthermore there should be a guarantee that the Member States will provide information explaining to users that a cheaper medication is not necessarily any less effective.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In line with the commitment made in Lisbon to a future for Europe involving a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and greater social cohesion, I will only support this report if Amendment No 42, which deletes the Commission’s proposal of applying a deadline for ensuring the essential protection of temporary workers, is adopted. I feel it is essential that the so-called principle of ‘non-discrimination’, which states that a temporary worker should not be treated less favourably than a similar worker in the company using him from the point of view of working and employment conditions should be applied fully and therefore without ‘discrimination’! In short, this principle should be guaranteed from day one: there can be no exemptions or waivers, particularly given that this atypical way of working, in comparison with all atypical ways of working, is the one that is most liable to violations, despite Community legislation on the subject, and to shameless exploitation, in other words to a sort of ‘reification’ of employment. In accordance with this fundamental idea, I will also vote in favour of the amendment obliging the Member States to prevent the use of temporary workers to subdue a strike movement.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in supporting this motion I speak particularly of the need to give financial assistance, both to cushion the socio-economic effects of the measures that have been taken and to help the industry to survive until the stocks have recovered. For colleagues whose constituencies are landlocked I offer the following analogy: supposing for good environmental reasons, such as a drastic cut in CO2 omissions, road haulage operators were told by the EU that they could only use their lorries for two weeks out of every four, and then only on condition that a significant proportion of the vehicles were taken off the road altogether. Imagine the fiscal consequences for the businesses concerned, then imagine that these businesses are the mainstay of towns and villages with fragile economies, and think what the outcome would be for local shops, schools and other services. Sadly, we who represent fishing communities around the North Sea - certainly those of us from Scotland - do not need to use our imaginations. We can already feel the effects. Of course assistance with restructuring can be given from within Member States. As Mrs Stihler has already said, the Scottish Executive has managed to find GBP 50 million from its already restricted budget. That is a measure of the seriousness of the situation. But I believe that the EU too must shoulder some of the financial responsibility. This is in part because past shortcomings of the CFP have contributed to the crisis. To a larger extent, it is because any democracy must adhere to the moral principle that where the direct effect of legislation is the destruction of people's honest livelihoods, they are at least compensated accordingly. I hope that the EU counts itself as such a democracy and that this principle will be fully expressed in the forthcoming vote. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
We Swedish wish to emphasise that we voted against the second and third parts in the split vote on paragraph 36 which asserted – mistakenly – that ‘a clear framework now exists for the release of genetically modified organisms in Europe which will ensure maximum consumer protection and environmental protection’ and – also mistakenly – that ‘it would therefore not be justified to continue the de facto moratorium on the release of GMOs’. We have also actively supported, inter alia, Amendment 8 which warns against a development leading to a situation in which individual farmers or entire nations become dependent on certain large corporations dependent in turn upon gene patents. The Swedish wish to stress that personal genetic information falls under the heading of fundamental rights of privacy and that it must therefore be protected so as to prevent third parties such as private insurance companies, employers, public authorities, commercial interests and others from gaining access to it or being able to make use of it. We have therefore supported amendments along these lines, especially Amendment 27.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one of my ancestors was the captain of a ship sailing between Scotland and Valparaiso, Chile. Sadly, he drowned on one of those hazardous journeys. So trade with Latin America is long established between my country and this great continent. It therefore gave me great pleasure to attend the EU-Latin American Parliamentary Conference in the same city last April. I am hopeful that Chile will shortly become the most recent signatory to a wide-ranging cooperation agreement with the EU, as Mexico – whose President Fox is visiting us here in this House today – did following the first summit meeting in Rio in 1999. Recently, Latin America has been very much in the news. We have had President Carter's reconciliation visit this week to Cuba, the sole remaining communist dictatorship; the farcical short-lived coup in Venezuela against the maverick President Chávez; the sad economic meltdown that we now see in once prosperous Argentina; as well as the ongoing tragedy of Colombia, racked by guerrilla war, political assassinations and illegal drug trafficking. Nevertheless, in spite of these problems, I retain a degree of optimism that Latin American countries will eventually realise that to reach western-style prosperity and security they will have to put aside their petty divisions – which are small compared to the linguistic and cultural differences that we face here in the EU – and unite in developing strong and stable functioning market economies, based on the Rule of Law, good governance, democracy and human rights. Initially the EU will have to negotiate bilateral treaties, but I am convinced that in the longer run a Latin American free-trade area drawing on the lessons of the Mercosur and Andean Pact countries' experience will emerge over the next decade. This will itself be subsumed eventually into the free trade area of the Americas, as agreed by the USA and the Latin American heads of state and government in Quebec last year. It also established for the first time embryonic clauses on human rights and democracy to which all the states signed up except, shamefully, Venezuela. I therefore welcome the second summit of the heads of state and government of Latin America, the Caribbean and the EU in Madrid on 17 May. I wish it well in its challenging project of bringing about much closer cooperation between these two great regions of the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
This morning, I flew to Strasbourg on the plane that leaves Milan Malpensa at 7 a.m. A little sleepy, I found myself in a car with Mr Napolitano and Mr Fiori, who like me were flying from Milan; I half-closed my eyes and I had a kind of vision. What did I see Mr President? I saw that we were in Europe in 2050: there were beautiful flowers everywhere, every colour under the sun, so much green; kind people, with kind hearts, there were no more wars; everyone lived happily amongst the flowers. I stopped a person who was passing by – and, what a coincidence, it was Mr Sacconi, the rapporteur for this report – who said to me: ‘See, despite everything that has been done in the past, the greenhouse effect has increased, it has grown and grown. The whole earth has become a hothouse full of flowers, like the type used by people who want to cultivate flowers, and, in this way, all humans have become better people.’ Therefore, I did vote in favour of this report, but I have a doubt, Mr President: would it not, perhaps, be better to let the greenhouse effect increase and let things take their natural course, even with the help of mankind?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Karas report regulates supplementary pension funds with a directive. The Pensioners’ Party is absolutely in favour of this report and, above all, wants Europe to regulate and strengthen pension funds based on capital formation, which are surely better than pay-as-you-go funds, which individual governments have not known how to manage properly. I regret, however, Mr President, that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, in which we discussed it, did not accept a Fatuzzo amendment calling on Member States to intervene in the event of the collapse or insolvency of pension funds. I hope it will be successful in the next version of the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Parliament, the Council and the Commission have cooperated splendidly to make the prevention and control of encephalopathy in animals more effective. The Regulation under discussion will help in the harmonisation of the legal basis. The Regulation takes account of scientific development. BSE tests for sheep and goats will be introduced as soon as the testing methods exist. The rapporteur is proposing two amendments. The first one deserves our strongest support, as it will provide even more protection, especially for those countries where there have been no cases of BSE as yet. The transport of animals is the main reason for the spread of animal diseases, which is why inspection has to be effective. Our group considers the second amendment to be unclear and for that reason does not support it, especially if the aim is to lower the age limit for BSE tests to animals which are 24 months old. This is not necessarily a sensible solution for all Member States. In saying this I certainly do not wish to oppose the proposal, if some Member States want to do this. Measures in the EU must, however, adapt to the BSE situation prevailing in Member States in compliance with the general policy contained in this Regulation.

Political group: ELDR
I want to draw attention to the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. We have seen President Mugabe's wanton non-compliance with the undertakings given at the Abuja summit on September and only last weekend the snub he delivered to the visiting EU Troika. It seems time now to introduce smart sanctions against Mugabe and his henchmen. This is what we called for in Parliament's resolution and I would ask you to use your best offices now to bring that about.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me thank our rapporteur very warmly for his report. The European Commission’s annual report on trans-European networks once again sets out the progress made with many transport projects and emphasises the important part the TENs play in protecting the environment. I take the view that the 14 projects decided at Essen play a very significant role in the extension of the European transport networks and, like many speakers before me, I want to stress the enormous importance of the Brenner base-level tunnel. Alpine transit must be looked at and understood as an overall problem. Certainly Austria, France and the neighbouring states are affected most. To show you or make you more aware of the seriousness of the situation, let me tell you that about 30% of transit traffic round Switzerland goes via the Brenner, which means that Austria bears the main burden. It should also be noted that in Austria, 80% of goods are carried by road and only 20% by rail, while in Switzerland the proportion is exactly the reverse. When some people ask why Austria is getting so agitated, since surely there is a similar volume of traffic elsewhere too, for instance in the Ruhr region, I have to reply yes, that is true, but the topographical features of Tyrol, of the Inntal, simply differ from those in other areas, such as the plains. Moreover, the Inntal in Austria is one of the most densely populated regions. Alpine transit is an integral problem which needs to be addressed in integral terms. We cannot look separately at Brenner, toll roads and Alpine transit. As for carrying out the construction timetables, I can say that we already have definite construction schedules in the Lower Inntal. Now we also need a clear political resolve, and not just on the part of the Member States. What we need is cross-financing. I would consider the transport costs directive an appropriate legal basis. I think that would give us sound financing. I call for public-private partnerships, for I think working together is the best way to succeed. We have a massive problem with north-south transit. I am against further studies of the Brenner Pass, for we already have enough of them as it is. What we need is to complete the Brenner base-level tunnel rapidly, for the sake of the population concerned, the environment and a sustainable, forward-looking transport policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I never thought I would be driven to make the speech you are about to hear. You and I are but two of the many who suffered long years of dictatorship. We all wholeheartedly supported the idea of the reunification of Europe and the creation of a democratic Europe once the countries in the other half of the continent achieved democracy. In this regard, we were well pleased with the outcome of the Brussels and Copenhagen Summits. The results might not have been remarkable, but the conclusions were acceptable and took account of the balance between the institutions. Then the text of this draft Treaty suddenly appeared. I should emphasise that the Treaty has not yet been signed and therefore everything is still open to amendment. This includes the deletion of Annex XV we have heard so much about. The reason is that it contains fixed budget items, together with guidelines on agricultural spending. In other words, it amounts to suspending the European Parliament’s rights up to 2007 in some cases and up to 2013 in others. This is inconceivable. We seem to have fallen down a black hole and be back in 1970. I find it quite intolerable. The book entitled Allegro ma non troppo by Carlo M. Cipolla comes to mind. It deals with the basic laws of human stupidity. I should make it clear this is not intended as a personal reference to our friend on the Council. A stupid person is defined as someone who causes damage to another person or a group of people without any advantage accruing to himself or herself, or even with some resultant self-damage. That is exactly what happened here. A text was introduced in an attempt to harm Parliament. The result was to damage the enlargement process and introduce unexpected hurdles when we all believed a solution was within our grasp. An unprecedented dispute then arose because precedents were ignored. There is no Annex XV in the Treaty for the previous enlargement involving Sweden, Finland and Austria. It is a new invention and that is really why the difficulty emerged. Ladies and gentlemen, as other honourable Members have made clear, Parliament is committed to enlargement on 1 May 2004. We are not in any way committed to a celebration on 16 April in the shadow of the Acropolis, however, though we would like to be part of it. We hope to be there, but we cannot accept the creation of different classes of Member States. We cannot accept restrictions on the competence of the European Parliament either. We would therefore like to make it quite clear that we are concerned about competence, not about money. Ladies and gentlemen, we will not sell Parliament’s birthright for a mess of pottage. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Minutes wrongly state that, following the report on, and description of, the attack on Mrs Klaß, I had simply called on the President to take disciplinary steps. Although true, that is only half the truth. In addition, I publicly called on him to lay charges before the responsible law enforcement agencies against the employees of this House who made themselves liable to criminal proceedings for failing to give assistance when Mrs Klaß was attacked. I request that the Minutes be amended accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, road safety, intermodality, the costs of transport infrastructure: my perspective on these issues, placed one after the other on today's agenda, is that of one who is concerned with the problems of mountainous areas, particularly the Alps. The subject of road safety brings to mind the Mont Blanc tunnel tragedy, which is an example of the need for European coordination guaranteeing safety in both operative tunnels and those under construction. Then there is the matter of intermodality across the Alps, where, apart from the Swiss decision to invest heavily in rail transport, there are serious delays in the construction of the other links and the other new rail tunnels already provided for by Community documents, such as those along the Turin-Lyons-Brenner link, or under discussion, such as the Aosta-Martigny tunnel. Clearly, if the wise sayings 'Whoever breaks it pays for it' or 'Polluter pays' crop up in a discussion on the cost of the roads, then, apart from anything else, there needs to be fewer heavy goods vehicles and more rail transport in the Alpine region in future. In the short-term, there needs to be severe restriction of the number of goods vehicles passing through the region, including the Mont Blanc Tunnel when it reopens at the end of this year.

Political group: ELDR