GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, optimists who take the view that the EU's policy and structure are doing well often claim that within the EU, economy and finance are no longer the all-important issues – and have not been for a long time – but that we have now moved on to a Community of values such as peace, solidarity and environmental protection. Unfortunately, the discussion of the directives on the protection of workers against asbestos once again illustrates that the EU is much more about the economy than about issues such as public health, and that the Council and the Commission want to keep it that way. On 10 April, at first reading, I insisted that more should be done about asbestos than the Commission had proposed. This is necessary because this illness-inducing substance has for far too long been treated as the solution for everything, because dwellings and industrial buildings in Eastern Europe contain high levels of Russian asbestos and because also people other than those handling asbestos can become affected. Among those who are at risk are family members of asbestos workers, residents of dwellings that contain asbestos and people who are in the vicinity of asbestos removal activities. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I have already tried to extend the scope of the directive to include other victims and to increase public access to business information. Initially, I received wide support for this until the Commission pointed out the legal pitfalls. On that basis, I suggested inviting the Commission, before the end of 2003 and independently of this directive, to make additional proposals for damages and the protection of victims other than those exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment. The Commission is against this extension, and the Council feels even more strongly about it. It would, of course, be a step forward if a more stringent directive were to be adopted now, but it is disappointing to see which measures will not be included for the time being because of objections raised to them. The compromise that has been thrashed out and the three corresponding amendments are therefore, in my view, inadequate.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. Roy Perry mentioned the sum spent on olives each year during the previous debate on education, and EUR 167 million over five years is a pittance for culture. As an actress that is nothing new to me. It is all too familiar. What a pity we cannot change and improve on this. My thanks to the rapporteur, especially for his willingness to engage in an open dialogue with us shadow rapporteurs. He really was there to discuss and take everything on board. We have two major problems. One is the material direction we want to take in the future, the questions we are asking now. That is not anticipating the debate, as Mrs Pack just said; the debate needs to be held now, if we need new ideas and want to format a new programme in 2004 for 2005, provided it is still running. The other problem area is administration, bureaucratic expenditure, overly vague selection criteria and implementation methods which are shouting out to be modified. These details are all contained in the report. I want to canvass in public for this Culture 2000 programme even now. Culture and cultural programmes are the soul of Europe, as everyone has said. You do realise that art and culture have an exponential effect on our integration policy and if we lose these partners along our common way, then our numbers shall dwindle and our strength in this fight, which we really do want to join forces on, will be sapped. The Sunday papers are full of articles swearing allegiance to culture, but nothing ever comes of it. I am already fed up with saying the same things, but we must keep on saying them. It is not just the Culture Ministers; the Finance Ministers also have a responsibility. Everyone in Europe has to find a place in society. Everyone is searching, perhaps from the cradle to the grave, to quote Mrs Pack. Everyone wants to feel at home in our European society, to recognise themselves in the reflection of European society which art and culture offer. If we cannot manage this, we shall not mange to root out conflicts, perhaps even as they arise, and we have a joint responsibility to do so. Parliament is fighting the good fight, the Commission is fighting the good fight. If we cannot get the Council on board, it is we who shall be left holding the baby!

Political group: Verts-ALE
We Moderates are of the opinion that direct support for the production of tobacco, olives, cotton and hops should be phased out. European support for tobacco production is neither morally nor economically defensible. We are also of the opinion that protective import duties on olives should be removed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Community data on health and safety at work reveal a general trend towards improvement. The situation remains quite critical, however, in some Member States. In this connection I would state that the situation in Portugal is cause for concern, especially in sectors such as construction, the textile industry and agriculture. I have voted in favour of this report, and I wish to highlight the following points: - The need to codify and simplify current Community legislation in this field and to encourage the Member States to apply this more rigorously; - The Commission must, as a matter of urgency and together with Parliament, draw up a detailed action plan, including financial commitments and timetables, incorporating the gender dimension and new types of risks and illnesses; - The need to encourage working within partnerships in order to facilitate better data collection and communication between the various actors involved; - The incorporation of the candidate countries into the institutions and bodies concerned in order to be able to provide effective technical and financial assistance; - Lastly, the importance of a preventive approach to the aspects of health and safety at work, targeting both workers and employers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, noise pollution is, of course, a reality. Furthermore it is increasing in most countries of the European Union. It is aggressive not only to the hearing but also to the whole nervous system of citizens and in many cases it alters not only the personality, through reactions such as irritability and insomnia, but it also produces pain in the auditory system. I come from a southern country and to tell you the truth I have very often thought: ‘Who could silence that lawnmower next door! Who could make the traffic on this street quieter! Who could stop the music coming from that discotheque on the other side of the block from reaching my windows!’ And on all those occasions when a citizen such as me has said, ‘Why is there nothing or nobody that can stop this noise?’, it should be possible for most cases to be regulated, either by the local council, the residents association or the regional authorities. In other words, at a local level rather than a national level. As numerous speakers have said, realistically speaking, it seems to me that there are practically no cases in which noise, at the level most citizens suffer it, should be dealt with in a cross-border fashion. Airport noise has been mentioned, but it apparently affects 1.7% of the population of a country, while road traffic noise affects far more. It seems to me that to concentrate on airport noise and not deal on a local level with road traffic, in particular, is a rather absurd form of discrimination against airports. I am not going to go into that, however. Above all, I wanted to make it clear once again that there is a difference between the various countries of the European Union in terms of noise and perceptions of it. In this respect, Mediterranean countries are more noisy, we have a climate which allows us to be outdoors and, in this sense, eight o’clock in the evening is for us a time for socialising, to be out and to be professionally active. We could never approve or support a directive which discriminates against other people’s cultures in this way.

Political group: PPE-DE
On 8 December 1999, the European Patent Office approved ‘by mistake’ Patent No EP 69 53 51 concerning the genetic manipulation of human cells and embryos. As a Swedish Social Democratic Member of the European Parliament, I have supported that resolution which now very firmly repudiates the European Patent Office’s decision, a decision which is contrary to people’s moral concepts and to EU and national legislation concerning patent law which applies within the European Union. By means of this explanation of vote, I want to express my anger and very deep disappointment at the fact that the European Patent Office can deal with a question about life itself in such a totally and indefensibly careless and negligent way. At the same time, I presume that the European Patent Office as an authority, and its representatives personally, are drawing the necessary conclusions from what has happened. This totally unacceptable decision on a patent concerning the genetic manipulation of human cells and embryos must consequently be rescinded and revoked as soon as possible, and this in order to protect life, the greatest and most sacred gift we have.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Liese very much for his outstanding work on this report. I would also like to pay tribute, in particular, to his efforts to include social groups in the work on the report as well. That is very commendable, for the real task here is genuinely to bring together all the social groups – patients' organisations, but also scientists and others – round the table, and he has been at pains to draw the different positions together. For us too, it is very important – indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is the priority – to send out a very clear signal to the Member States that embryos may not be used for research purposes. We do not want to create any incentive for embryos to be produced solely for research purposes. We also do not want women to be degraded into egg cell or embryo donors. This is something we must reject, loud and clear. We must also make it clear that no tissue or cells from embryos in general may be used. On the issue of embryonic stem cells, too, my position is quite clear: what we are saying is that adult stem cells are just as, if not more suitable. We cannot awaken any false hopes here. I would like to mention the damaging reports on gene therapy, which have recently been circulating, in this context. In this area, far too many false hopes have been awakened for many years, instead of genuinely looking at alternatives. Science and research without a conscience would be humanity's ruin. For this reason, the task must be to send out very clear signals here. It is also important to emphasise in the report, yet again, that the cloning of humans or embryos is not permitted. In my view, it cannot be stressed often enough, here in Parliament and indeed elsewhere, that we need a very clear limit. A great deal has already been said about donations without remuneration, and it is clear, as has already been discussed, that the human body is not a commodity. For this reason, Commissioner, I would urge you once again to respond positively to the demand which we have tabled. We are calling on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal before July 2003, for the situation on organ donations in particular is making it increasingly clear that the human body or parts thereof are indeed becoming commodities. In my view, we need very clear European legislation in this area.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the previous Vice-President in the chair quite rightly asked for Members who are coming in to vote to enter the Chamber quietly when a debate is going on. That is right. However, every voting time this week has slipped behind not just by a few minutes, but by over 25 minutes. I ask the powers-that-be or the great and the good to do something so that in future voting time starts on time, as opposed to the rigmarole that seems to happen every part-session with the time slipping by. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the question before us is what line our cohesion policy should follow in the new perspective that is opening up with enlargement. There are two parts to the response: on the one hand, the principles on which cohesion policies are to be based from 2006 onwards must be established and, on the other hand, the priorities must be set. In my opinion, there are two principles which must underpin cohesion policy: firstly, equal opportunities, and secondly, regionalisation. Modern economic theory teaches us, with a wealth of detail and supported by considerable empirical evidence, that the success of local development policies is strictly linked to an increase in the power of individuals to take autonomous decisions and to the projects for implementing regional policies which are acceptable to those voters. In the same way, talking about regionalisation is the same as defining economic policies at local level so that they respect and appreciate the different assets of each region, and so that the local government institutions, subject to monitoring by the electorate making them politically accountable, can take collective decisions backed by genuine democratic support. The achievement of these goals certainly requires a different type of statistic on the state of the economies, at both local and national and Community level. Data on per capita income are no longer sufficient to assess individuals’ opportunities for access in the European regions; we need much more: we need indicators which measure the degree of access to resources, indicators which measure the level of economic freedoms, which measure the level of fundamental human rights, which measure, in short, the quality of life.

Political group: PPE-DE
My group supports Mrs Sommer's report, as it takes up the specific problem of the situation which will face 33 million people living in 23 of the European Union's border regions after the accession of the central and eastern European countries. We are also glad that a range of proposals submitted by the Confederal Group of the have been incorporated into the report, for example the emphasis on the need to provide more funds to promote SMEs, and the call for an increase in the EU share in co-finance in order to take account of the calamitous gaps in terms of development. We share the rapporteur's fundamental conviction that the EUR 195 million in funding allocated by the Commission are far from adequate, and we support to the utmost the demand for additional financial resources. This is all the more the case as the funds currently available are being found by means of reallocations, whilst at the same time the finance ministers of various countries can look forward to billions from the resources of the Structural and Regional Funds not being utilised and therefore being refunded. We regret the fact that it has not been possible to bring about the acceptance of a legal basis specifically for the promotion of border regions, without which the longer-term funding of measures will be impossible. By way of contrast, we welcome the orientation towards dealing more effectively with the connection of the regional transport systems to the Trans-European Networks. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
This regulation complements the Community system for authorising and controlling GMOs, which now comprises a compulsory labelling scheme for all genetically modified food and feed. We know that approving it constitutes one more step towards lifting the current moratorium, which should be maintained given the risks of releasing GMOs into the environment and of the coexistence of GMOs with conventional and organic crops. The US biotechnology industry is exerting great pressure to open up the European market to imports of GMOs. It hopes, consequently, to force the acceptance of these technologies, especially in developing countries, as Mr Bush demonstrated in his recent speech to the convention of the Biotechnology Industry Organisation in Washington. In his speech, he accused the EU of contributing to hunger in Africa by blocking imports of GMOs, and demanded that Community restrictions on GMOs be lifted. Meanwhile, he refuses to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The USA and the multinationals want not only farmers but also the agricultural and food policies of Member States to come under their sway. This pressure exerted by the USA and the multinationals, moreover, is bringing closer the lifting of the moratorium and the abolition of the traceability and labelling system. This system has become the first line of defence both in the battle against genetically modified food and the release of GMOs into the environment, and also in the attempt to rally consumers and farmers alike on this issue.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am standing in for Mr Clegg, the rapporteur. I have just spoken to him. He is ill in bed, but, you will be glad to know, he will be with us again shortly. He wanted me to say that the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party welcomes this very strongly because it is a major breakthrough in the single market and for the Lisbon agreement into a sector which has previously been closed. We welcome strongly and fully support the compromise on labelling and unbundling and on the dates of market opening. However, the principal point that the would like to make is about the funds for decommissioning in the nuclear sector. We want to support and thank the Commission for its revised declaration. Previously the Commission had told us that funds from the Euratom Treaty would be sufficient for the decommissioning. However, as everybody knows, the Euratom funds are not subject to proper transparency and accountability. Now that the Commission has told us that the competition provisions will apply fully in this sector, we are extremely pleased because this means openness and transparency and proper rule for the single market. My group will vote in favour of this tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Israeli threats to assassinate Yasser Arafat are not just morally reprehensible, but also politically unacceptable and absurd, unless, of course, the intention is to cause chaos in the region. It is as if we were not all aware that Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider Arafat to be the barrier preventing them from attempting an assault on Israel. How are the Palestinians going to negotiate with people who intend, in this way, to assassinate their President, democratically elected in 1996 in fair and democratic elections, in the presence of observers, including ours? Frankly, the only legitimate and morally acceptable way to get rid of Arafat is by means of the elections laid down in the roadmap. George Bush has just said, although it sounds like sarcasm, that ‘in the United States we free people by means of a peaceful and ordered process’ but, nevertheless, has vetoed a resolution in the Security Council which advocated just that and expressed opposition to political assassination. I would like to highlight here and now the political realism of President Chirac, who said in New York, and I quote verbatim, Mr President: ‘you may think what you like about Arafat, but the truth is that he is the authority, the elected and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. I do not believe that anyone else can impose an agreement on the Palestinians’. End of quote. Within this context, and in relation to the settlements, it offers little hope that Colin Powell should have said on Monday, and I quote, that: ‘it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the Israeli Prime Minister to say to his people that he is giving in to American pressure’. End of quote. I would ask myself: have the Palestinians not given in, by reforming the Ministry of Finance and creating the post of Prime Minister against the initial will of Arafat although, at the end of the day, with his assent? Incidentally, however, if you wish to listen to an Israeli voice on the subject of Yasser Arafat, then please listen to Simon Peres, who – on reaching 80 years old – has said: firstly, that Arafat has accepted the theory of two states, abandoning that of the destruction of the state of Israel; secondly, that he has accepted the 1967 borders, abandoning those of 1948, and, thirdly, that he has agreed to negotiate. Simon Peres says – and it is true – that Yasser Arafat only has one significant fault, which is that he is not combating the fundamentalist militias of Hamas and Jihad. I, however, would say that until the Israeli Government adopts specific measures, which are credible to the Palestinian population, on selective assassinations, the settlements or the wall of shame, for example, no Palestinian will enjoy the popularity and political support necessary to combat the Islamic extremists. Mr President, not until the non-terrorists have a consolidated political space, which so far Israel has not provided, will the terrorists have lost the war.

Political group: PSE
Turkey decided in favour of Europe as long ago as the Atatürk revolution in the early 1920s. Moreover, people from Turkey and their descendants have formed a major population group in Western Europe for the past 40 years. This has made the discussion about the question whether Turkey belongs to Europe and whether it would not be preferable if it were to sign association agreements with the Middle East, Central Asia or Iran, increasingly more theoretical. Those who want to keep Turkey outside the European Union on the grounds that it is largely outside Europe in geographical terms or because it is not founded upon the Judaeo-Christian tradition, lost the argument a long time ago. However, this does not mean that those who defend the other extreme are necessarily right either. In its current state, Turkey does fit into the authoritarian Europe of the first half of the twentieth century, but not as yet in a European Union of parliamentary democracies. Before that can happen, it will need to stop banning political parties, do away with an electoral system that is geared towards exclusion, stop taking political prisoners, and abolish censorship of the press, the oppression of regional languages and the army's political influence. Legislative amendments without changes in practice are not enough. Anyone who wants Turkey to join for military, economic or idealistic reasons should realise the negative effects that a premature admission could have. It would not benefit democracy, human rights, peace and the environment within the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL