GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to make some additional remarks regarding the humanitarian resolution that we have signed. It is indeed important to attempt, as a matter of urgency, to do something to address the damage caused by the terrible earthquake on 23 June this year. The consequences of this earthquake have been described by the previous speakers. I will not go over them again as we already know what they are. I just want to point out that the quake reached 8.3 on the Richter scale. That says it all. Unfortunately, there is no Richter scale to gauge the extent of the institutional, economic, social and cultural devastation brought about by almost ten years of dictatorship under Alberto Fujimori and his henchman, Vladimiro Montesinos. In a room in this Parliament not far from this one, only the day before yesterday, Alfredo Toledo, the future president of Peru, painted an uncompromising picture of the situation in his country. He described institutions in ruin, an economy in dire straits. He told us that he is going to start the task of rebuilding as soon as he has been sworn in, which should happen on 28 July, Peru’s national holiday. In particular, he told us that he was against impunity for those responsible for this situation. We therefore believe that Japan should be asked to extradite the former dictator Alberto Fujimori, and that he and his accomplice, Montesinos, should be tried in Peru itself. We call for the 'Truth’ commission, which was promised by the candidates, to be set up, for the committee to establish responsibilities and to carry out the purge that must follow of the armed forces, which colluded with the dictatorship. We also call for the return of the money stolen by the dictatorship from the Peruvian people, which totals 43 billion dollars, and which is probably tucked away in a European bank somewhere. Lastly, our institutions should find out whether the money stolen from the Peruvian people is indeed in our banks. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to thank the Irish Presidency for the clarity with which it has attempted to answer my question. I must, however, insist on an issue that I believe to be crucial: I should like to know whether the Council will give due consideration to the conclusions of the working party appointed by the Commission itself, which suggested that the costs of maintaining this ‘Natura’ network would exceed EUR 3.4 billion per year. I should also like to know whether the Council thinks that our financial perspectives will match the commitments given by the European institutions? This is the very specific issue that I would like the Council to clarify.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the multinational Siser has announced that it is to shut its factory in Athens immediately, throwing into the street 500 workers who, for years, have worked in inhumane conditions securing it fat profits. It is doing so in order to move its factory to Bulgaria or Asia, so that it can be more competitive and more productive. However, this factory increased its profits by 83% in 2002, compared with 2001, and received a fat subsidy from the Greek Government. The decision by this multinational comes on top of similar decisions by other multinationals, which have closed down production units in Greece in order to locate to countries with much lower wage costs and conditions in general which allow for more intensive exploitation of the workers. Not only does the European Union do nothing to prevent decisions and actions such as these by big business; on the contrary, they are encouraged and funded from national and Community resources. This is blatant proof that this European Union policy, however embellished with proclamations of Community sensitivity, holds only one thing sacred: to safeguard maximum possible profits for big business and, of course, to achieve them through acute exploitation of the workers. We condemn the stated policy of economic and political penetration of the European Union, which is causing the redundancy of thousands of workers in the Member States of the European Union and the overexploitation of the workers in the countries to which these businesses relocate.

Political group: GUE-NGL
President, this is a serious and balanced report which is a credit to our rapporteur, Mr. Menéndez del Valle. As the European Parliament must always do, it rejects violence on all sides, as the only way of supporting the Road Map for peace in the Middle East. British Labour Euro MPs give our wholehearted support to this process, and to Parliament's vote today. We abstained on two technical points only. Yes, we believe both sides must honour the association agreements with ourselves in the European Union, but we do not believe the threat of quick suspension of those agreements is a constructive step at this stage. Equally, although we do not rule out a United Nations peacekeeping force at some future point, we believe it is unrealistic to call for one at this point, which would clearly not obtain agreement within the region itself. This does not detract from an important piece of political work, and the European Parliament can be proud of the contribution we are making today to support peace, justice and security for Israel and the Palestine.

Political group: PSE
In the debate between Council and Parliament on the award of public markets in the European Union, the eye is instantly caught by the extent to which the bitterest enemies of state control forget their reservations as soon as the contest for state contracts begins. State money attracts them. How could the great construction and public works consortiums have built their financial empires, indeed, without state contracts? How would armaments consortiums survive if there were no public money? The so-called market economy is on a life-support machine, kept alive by the state on a saline drip. It is no coincidence that public market harmonisation is progressing so slowly. The big industrial cartels would like to keep access to their own state’s money hostage even as they lay their hands on the public money of the country next door. As to the conditions for award of markets, the rules which are beginning to emerge reflect, in their desiccated bureaucratism, a cynicism bordering on sincerity. Under these conditions for the award procedure, the monetary value of the offer is the only thing that matters. Environmental and health requirements have been forgotten, to the justifiable indignation of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The same fate has befallen working conditions and workers’ remuneration in the companies which are pocketing public money. Also forgotten are so many other aspects, such as archaeological research. Forgotten, last of all, are the interests of society in general. Returns are all that counts. Social organisation has been reduced to a balance sheet. Furthermore, under the pretext of coordinating procedures in the water, energy, transport and postal service markets, the Council is trying to enshrine these as intrinsically no more than that: markets, rather than vital services for the whole of society. No! Those water, energy and transport services, those postal services, must be and remain public services. They cannot be surrendered to these private groups, who are concerned with their own profits and not with the interests of users. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I read the Ludford report with great interest and I would like to compliment the rapporteur on her remarks on Austria and the Austrian situation. However, I would stress that these remarks are out of place in a report on human rights. When we hold a debate on Austria, when we draw up a document on the Austrian situation – if Parliament judges it appropriate so to do – then we might even be able to give Baroness Ludford the task of drawing up a document which we will debate together. These remarks have no place in a document on human rights, as they should not be using up the time allocated to the Baroness’s report, and so they have acquired the bitter taste of political exploitation of a very serious issue such as human rights. I would like to say something else on the subject of this report, regarding the right of Europeans to their own identity. Throughout the document, the identity of Europeans, of the European nations, is not once referred to in a positive sense but always as a possible framework for xenophobia and racism. I am a practising Christian who is sure of his beliefs: now, is this a reason to accuse me of xenophobia? On the contrary, xenophobia is more likely to be caused by a decline in religious convictions. Religion per se is a factor which promotes fraternity. I am a staunch Italian patriot, so, according to paragraph O of this document, I could be accused of xenophobia. This seems to me to be indicative of a cultural attitude which encourages xenophobia, for it encourages fear of globalisation, which prompts many local communities to become inward-looking and refuse dialogue, dialogue which takes identity into account. We must make it clear that Europe does have a cultural identity, based on our Greek and Judo-Christian heritages and on enlightenment, which enters freely into dialogue with other identities. A multicultural Europe which does not include European culture would lead to disaster and its decline. This is not a not a question of black or white cultures: there is no connection between colour and culture. Culture is based on values, not colour. There are many issues related to xenophobia and racism, but these must be dealt with by the local communities. It is not our place to define labour market quotas, or police or any other labour market quotas, and if we were to do so we would hinder integration, not encourage it. Lastly, are we really of the opinion that all those who are not in favour of completely uncontrolled immigration are racist? And do we really think that the Constitutions of all of our nations are racist because their criteria are different from those espoused by Baroness Ludford? These aspects of the report need to be evaluated carefully and many of them changed, or we will find it hard to obtain a general consensus in this Chamber.

Political group: PPE-DE
The undersigned members of the Confederal Group of the agree entirely with the point of view of both the Commission and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport that language is a rather crucial component of human communication, whether it be the spoken or written language, sign language or body language. There are people who prefer Esperanto as a form of communication across national borders. There are also professional jargons, different dialects in one and the same country and minority languages which are now being recognised by democracies. It is also important for posterity to carry out research into languages which are dying out. In short, we believe that an understanding of the importance of language is invaluable and that the European Union ought to be acknowledging this beyond the mere one year of the present campaign. We hope that this view of ours is also shared by the Council and by national parliaments both within and outside the Union. The sums proposed by the Commission (EUR 8 million) and by the Committee (EUR 10 million) are too modest, in our opinion. It ought to be possible to spend the proposed sums of money on other things, for which reason we are completely abstaining from voting.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am firmly of the belief that people have a right to smoke, but my personal taste is that they should do so only in the privacy of their own homes. This rule can be applied equally to all recreational but dangerous drugs when no one but the person consuming the drug is likely to be affected. Certainly, there is none more dangerous than tobacco mixed with nicotine and other chemicals to guarantee a very high rate of addition and dependency. Governments have the task of ensuring that citizens have the information to make informed decisions and to exercise their free will. Earlier this year, the Canadian Government decided to strengthen its powers of communication with its citizens about tobacco products and overcome the intense lobbying and huge financial interests of the tobacco companies by requiring that cigarette packets in Canada carry pictures depicting some of the health consequences of smoking. Studies have shown that such pictures have a significantly greater effect in conveying concerns about smoking and the health consequences than any written warning. I ask Members of the House to support the amendment which has been tabled by John Bowis for the Group, Catherine Stihler for the Socialist Group and myself. This seeks to give the governments of European Union Member States strengthened powers to introduce such pictures on cigarette packets in their own countries. I emphasise that we are not insisting that these pictures should be imposed on every Member State. It simply gives Member States an additional right to introduce them. Let people have the freedom to choose whether or not to smoke. Let us be absolutely sure that they are informed when they make the decision one way or the other. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, “the creation of an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe and the maintenance and development of the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice are based on general and absolute respect for human dignity, which is unique to each person, yet common to all, and inviolable.” So reads Item B in the motion for a resolution we have before us. I consider it to be great progress that the European Parliament has specified and established a view of human beings which is deeply rooted in Europe’s history, culture, popular movements and spiritual traditions. I am therefore pleased that my amendment concerning human dignity – unique to each person, yet common to all and inviolable – obtained support in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, for we must establish a common view of human beings as the effective basis for the EU’s urgent, global fight against the death penalty, its struggle on the side of life and also its fight against torture, against the sex trade and against sexual exploitation. In our capacity as citizens, we have freedoms and rights, but we also have responsibilities. I therefore welcome the fact that responsibilities have been incorporated in accordance with my wording in Item E. I would also remind you of Amendments Nos 24 and 25 which the Group of the European People’s Party and have submitted and which will be voted on tomorrow. By way of conclusion, I want to discuss the fact that, in November 1999, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities in the European Parliament made a statement to the effect that the family does not have any special rights but only individual rights. This statement totally conflicts with the UN’s and the Council of Europe’s fundamental human rights charters concerning the rights of the family.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, formally, and not in writing, I withdraw the resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, questions such as the presence of GMOs in our food and uncertainty about their effects on humans and on the environment are now in the public domain, and that is for the best. In France, the press gave a great deal of coverage to the European Parliament vote on this directive at second reading. French and European citizens alike are expecting the Members they elected to have a clear standpoint – the scandals involving contaminated blood and mad cow disease should give them a right to this, as if any justification were necessary. Along with other Members, I believe that the findings of the Conciliation Committee fall far short of alleviating the concerns voiced by European society. The notorious lack of any requirement for traceability is a source of provocation to all the people who wish, quite legitimately, to be kept informed. Yet, the right to information is not always acknowledged. The proposed regulations must guarantee the reliable labelling and traceability of GMOs and derived products. In addition, we must ensure that those who produce and release GMOs are held responsible. We must denounce the lobbying by unscrupulous laboratories and the multinational companies who represent them. To sum up, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by the final reading of the directive in order to highlight the responsibility of the Council, which failed to adopt all Parliament’s amendments after first reading which went in this direction and which would have produced a quite different text. What is going to be adopted as the definitive text is in danger of completely invalidating the moratorium of June 1999, whereas the precautionary principle would instead put the lives and health of men and women before any other considerations, especially financial considerations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in a few days’ time it will be the 20th anniversary of the adoption by the European Parliament of the Draft Treaty Establishing the European Union, created and proposed by Altiero Spinelli. The Conference of Presidents called on the political groups to look into the possibilities for celebrating both this anniversary and the 25th anniversary of the death of Jean Monnet, one of the greatest creators of European integration. I would, however, like to draw your attention, Mr President, to the dissimilar nature of these two anniversaries. Celebrating the anniversary of the Spinelli draft means not so much paying homage to Altiero Spinelli himself, as appreciating the far-sightedness of the European Parliament that, 20 years ago, drew up and proposed the first treaty of a constitutional nature, something which it makes sense to stress today in the light of our renewed commitment to ensure that Europe is in fact finally given a Constitution. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on Wednesday 21 May 2003, I was sent as a European Parliament delegate to the United Nations in New York to speak at the Permanent Forum of indigenous peoples from all over the world, which meets once a year in the UN headquarters. I did, of course, convey the greetings of the European Parliament, and I emphasised the consideration we have given over the past three years to all the indigenous and aboriginal races of the United States of America, Canada, South America, Africa, Oceania and so forth, and all the representatives of the world’s indigenous peoples asked me to inform the European Parliament that they are waiting for us to speak out resolutely to support them and to provide practical aid to promote respect for their human rights. Above all, however, they are waiting for Europe to make its voice heard so that it is not just the United Nations which takes any notice of them, for we all know that the Europe of yesterday was responsible for situations which are causing them to suffer today. I hope that you, Mr President, will listen to me personally when I pass on to you the requests made by these peoples to the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are living at a time when it is becoming clearer that the Stability Pact functions as an obstacle to development and to economic and social cohesion: by considering monetary and nominal convergence as a priority, by making restrictive budgets mandatory, it prevents those countries with major difficulties from being able to engage in a policy of investment, particularly public investment, in a period such as the present one of slowdown in economic activity and the threat of international recession. In various countries and from different sources warnings are being issued regarding the need to amend the Stability Pact and the priority being given to the monetarist policies of neo-liberalism. This situation is being felt both in the more developed countries and in those where situations of the greatest inequality prevail and/or where threats of social tension are emerging. In a country like Portugal, which has the lowest salaries, pensions and reforms in the European Union and the highest rates of premature school-leaving, accidents at work and poverty, the application of rigid timetables and deadlines and major restrictions on public spending and investment is unacceptable, because this will impede the country’s development and obstruct the way to economic and social cohesion. The need for the immediate suspension of the Stability Pact is, therefore, very topical. In a European Union that claims to be concerned with social problems, committed to the creation of jobs and the fight against social exclusion and poverty, maintaining monetary stability at any cost cannot continue to be considered as a priority, when we know that the consequences will be more unemployment, more salary restrictions and more poverty. It is not a question of merely calling for some flexibility in the criteria of the Stability Pact and the implementation of the growth and stability programmes, which each country has had to present. It is essential to engage in an in-depth revision of the objectives, criteria and foundations of the Stability Pact, starting from the premise that the budgets of the Member States must reflect the needs of each people and each country and not the interests of the financial groups that the European Central Bank is seeking to convey. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, EMAS is to be revised, and my Group and I are very much in favour of its scope being extended. I do believe, however, that the examples of Austria and Germany to which the previous speaker, Mr Schnellhardt, has already referred, show that it is no coincidence that the countries where participation levels are highest are among the proponents of the tabled position, in which adherence to the existing environmental provisions and the use of the best available technology are seen as key instruments for improving companies' efficiency in the use of natural resources and their protection of the environment. Accordingly, I should like to give my wholehearted support to those amendments that call for the use of the best available technology as well as to canvass your support for Amendment No 12, which lays special emphasis on compliance with existing environmental provisions. I am well aware, of course, that there must be incentives to encourage wider participation in this scheme. For all that, I believe that the credibility of this eco-audit scheme can only be guaranteed if we set our own high standards rather than pursuing the opposite strategy of alignment with the ISO standard. My Group also attaches particular importance to the participation of employees and their representatives. I accept the rapporteur's proposal – we came to an agreement on this today – that an oral amendment be moved tomorrow in order to make it clear that we also accept the compromise on the involvement of employees and their representatives, in other words the reduction of such involvement to the works level. In my view, this will represent a major step forward in the implementation of EMAS, not only in terms of its democratic credentials but also from a managerial point of view. I shall waive the remainder of my speaking time, which should certainly put me in the President's good books!

Political group: PSE