GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, following the agreement between China and the United States on membership of the World Trade Organisation, I ought perhaps, in my capacity as head of the China delegation, to be as jubilant as the international finance markets. “China is becoming a modern country now,” it is said. “Therefore, it is also becoming democratic”. One commentator even believes that the Chinese Communist Party’s monopoly on power will be broken because membership of the World Trade Organisation means freedom of communication, including by means of unchecked Internet contacts. We can only hope that this will be the case. But might it not equally well happen instead that the regime will be reinforced by means of a form of economic growth which favours an urban minority but simultaneously creates tens of millions of new unemployed when state enterprises are left to go under, ruthlessly and without any networks of social protection, at the same time as millions of farmers become unemployed because of the new competition in the agricultural sphere? Now, it is the case that China cannot become a member of the World Trade Organisation without the EU’s also agreeing to this. I really hope therefore that, in its negotiations with China, the European Commission will take account of all the social and ecological aspects of the issue which the Americans clearly cared not one little bit about when they negotiated with the Chinese. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the closer we get to the Millennium Round, the greater the need for explaining to our people why exactly we want to have a new liberalisation round within the framework of the WTO. Each of us who has recently had anything to do with the non-governmental organisations has had to constantly hear that the major liberalisation step since the Uruguay Round has not been the absolute non plus ultra. And quite right! There is greater dissatisfaction among the poorer countries because people are wondering where all the promised prosperity has gone, who has cashed in and how the poor have become even poorer. This is shown by the facts of the UNCTAD and OECD reports. This should not be the case! It is not for me at this time to elaborate on the advantages which we will gain from the next liberalisation step. That will be done by my colleagues. It is my job to point out previous failings and our inability to provide social balance in the world. For this reason, we in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs naturally stand up primarily for the personal situation of those affected and for their rights and bring this to the debate. This is of particular importance in the poorer countries especially; countries which have a worse democratic/political tendency. We want free world trade to be tied in with the basic questions of future policy, our future, the questions of social harmony and environmental concerns. We do not want to support any new protectionism – absolutely not; rather, we want the seven core Labour Standards of the International Labour Organisation to also be guaranteed for workers in the ACP and developing countries. Why the seven core Labour Standards? These seven core Labour Standards are based on the four basic human rights in the workplace; the right of association and to organise freely and unhindered, the right to form trade unions, the right to freedom from forced labour and the right to a childhood. We still have five-year olds standing or sitting at the loom whilst their parents have no work. This is nothing new! Or the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of sex, religion, political persuasion or national or ethical background. We want these rights to also be afforded to workers in the poorer countries. At this very time when new partners such as China are joining us within the framework of the WTO, this is of particular importance. What I have been speaking about is the real concern of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, namely to provide the workers of these countries with a tool to defend themselves, the right to be able to defend themselves. This in itself can provide more social balance. This, Commissioner, also belongs on the negotiating table and is our concern. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank the Ombudsman for the splendid job he has done with a view to securing citizens’ rights in the EU system. The institution of the Ombudsman is very important, and it is important that we should all constantly keep an eye on it and ensure that it can thrive, in the light of the new developments too. The Ombudsman himself stated that there is a gulf between the EU and its citizens. We do a lot of talking about it, but in reality we bring about very few radical steps to change the situation. One of the reasons why people cannot fathom the EU system is also, of course, the utterly hopeless way in which we have organised ourselves, with a physical presence in Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg, and I think one might well ask whether it is particularly appropriate for the Ombudsman to be located here in Strasbourg, though this is, of course, also partly due to the Ombudsman’s own decision. I do not think it is appropriate. I think it means that the Ombudsman is very easily sidelined in relation to the EU’s other institutions which he has, of course, to inspect but then also to reform, and I am inclined to think that it might go some way towards creating further conflicts. I would go on to specify a couple of specific areas. The first is the White Paper. The Ombudsman himself touched upon this. I think this is a very good example of a situation in which, as Mr Prodi pointed out the other day, the fact that the Ombudsman does not associate with the Commission on a daily basis means that he is not mentioned at all in the White Paper, as it would otherwise have been only natural for him to have been. The other thing I should like to say is that I think, in fact, that there are too few complaints. I am well aware that the Ombudsman is pressed for time, but I cannot understand why there are not more complaints, considering the huge institutional apparatus with which we are concerned here. The third very important point is that the Ombudsman has made an effort to obtain ombudsmen for the candidate countries. It is, of course, extremely important that, when the new candidate countries come on board, we also make sure they understand the nature of good administrative behaviour, seeing that they do not of course, in reality, have any special experience of our way of administering matters. Fourthly, I am very pleased that the Ombudsman has addressed the subject of the e-mail system and that he is doing some energetic work on this so that we obtain real complaints and not only junk complaints. IN THE CHAIR: MR SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are also to discuss the Montfort report this week, which Parliament wants to use to promote an entrepreneurial way of thinking. It is therefore particularly apt to acknowledge three things in this debate. Firstly, the fact that a European Charter of Fundamental Rights has now been drafted, Article 16 of which establishes the right to entrepreneurial freedom. Of course, this right demands strict competition law, because only this will guarantee fair competition. It protects consumers and investors. Secondly, it is only right that we should acknowledge the highly commendable book by Karel van Miert, which tells us about the means employed by entrepreneurs to bring pressure to bear on other entrepreneurs. Thirdly therefore, I would like to congratulate the Commission and its staff on the actions and decisions they have taken in the field of competition law, previously under Karel van Miert and now under your overall control, Professor Monti. Against this background, you have reworked a communication on services of general interest and set out the legal situation once again. This statement contains three important messages. Firstly, the Member States have the right to define everything that belongs under this heading. Secondly, the Member States have the right to inject supplementary funding if it would otherwise be impossible to maintain these activities. And thirdly – and this is highly relevant to this debate – there must of course be no areas which are exempt from competition law. It is therefore possible to see why renationalisation would spell trouble. It must not annul the general validity of Community law. Hence those articles in the motions for resolutions which point to this fact, including the need for transparency, are particularly valuable. Professor Monti, I would like to make a suggestion in this respect. You really ought to clarify, at an earlier stage, that start-up aid – the administration of which varies substantially from Member State to Member State, in the sphere of renewable energies for example – will enjoy confidentiality protection, at least for the duration of its lifetime, even if, in the meantime – which is what I am hoping will happen – the Union as a whole upgrades its support measures.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in addition to what Mr Hatzidakis said, there is a relatively recent report on the circumstances surrounding the accident involving the tanker by the relevant ministry in Pakistan, which does not contain any, even rudimentary evidence that could be used to substantiate charges against the seamen. Similarly, the ship's insurers submitted proposals for compensation a long time ago but have not received any official reply from the Pakistani authorities, and yet they have spent over USD 20 million on this accident, for transportation of the shipwreck and so on. We know that the European Union Troika with Commissioner Patten is going to Islamabad next week, on the 18th of the month, and that they have managed to get this issue placed at the top of the agenda on relations between the European Union and Pakistan. We hope that there will be results from this discussion, which for a long time now has been plaguing our feelings and our thoughts, mainly of innocent people struggling to make a living at sea. We note that interventions have been made on the part of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by Georgos Papandreou as minister for foreign affairs and by the deputy minister, without any substantial response from their counterpart in Pakistan. This is a terrible situation. In addition to what Mr Hatzidakis said about the Greek seaman who tried to commit suicide, there is the following tragicomic or sad fact: attempted suicide is a criminal offence there. So now this shadow of a man is on trial because he attempted to commit suicide. We hope that suicide will not also be a criminal offence when it is committed. With such conduct, how do you suppose any qualified young man will turn to the seafaring profession? Who, ultimately, will protect the lives of seafarers and the marine environment in the future? We are calling for humanity, logic and legality to prevail at long last in this affair and we are depending on the efforts of Commissioner Patten next week in Islamabad.

Political group: PSE
We voted in favour of all the amendments which seek to strengthen safety both for the staff of airlines, airports and companies based in airports, and for air passengers. However, we rejected the amendments which, on the pretext of maintaining balanced competition, bow to pressure from the lobbies – primarily the airline lobbies – and will do nothing more than delay the implementation of essential measures or will ensure that the measures taken will not meet the legitimate expectations of the public and the staff concerned. In recommending that the authorities finance these measures, the rapporteur is acknowledging the fact that the market, the laws of competition and profit, in other words, the capitalist functioning of the economy extolled by the European institutions, are incompatible with passenger and worker safety. And unfortunately, air transport is by no means an exception in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we in the Group of the wish to retain the moratorium on releasing genetically modified crops for commercial cultivation. This position is not changed by the clear improvements due to Directive 90/220 and which we are now discussing. In the conciliation, it was, in particular, we in the Group of the , together with the , who fought for the improvements which have now in fact been made, for example the gradual elimination of antibiotic-resistant markers, greater transparency and better risk assessments. We have also achieved at least a half victory when it comes to public registers of GMOs, but it is still very unclear whether the Member States really see themselves as being obliged to report publicly on all GMOs cultivated for commercial purposes. Clarification from the Council of Ministers and the Commission is needed on this matter. It is not advisable to adopt laws on matters about which, right from the beginning, there are different interpretations. We have still not seen the new rules promised to us by the Commission and required for labelling, traceability and accountability. Until we know what they look like and until they have been fully implemented, we cannot contemplate lifting the moratorium. Nor do we believe that, when the moratorium is lifted, it should be possible for any Member State to be forced to cultivate genetically modified crops. We consider the strategy devised by the Commission whereby new crops are to be approved before these rules are fully in place to be objectionable and contrary to the precautionary principle. It is also significant that there is a desire here to pre-empt the reading in Parliament and in the Council of Ministers. There is now no demand for genetically modified food in the European Union. More and more parts of the world are abandoning GM crops. There are major differences of opinion between researchers about the risks involved in GM crops. This applies both to the risk of contaminating other species and to possible effects on human health. To insist, in this situation, upon the cultivation of more GM crops for commercial purposes would be foolhardy and lead to a very great deal of opposition. Recent scandals and problems involving food policy ought to have taught us to proceed carefully. The interests of consumers and the precautionary principle must be allowed to take precedence over the commercial interests of a few large companies. We want to retain the moratorium on commercial cultivation. There is a risk that the revision of this directive may be taken by the Commission as a pretext for approving new GM crops for cultivation. That is not something to which we can be a party. In spite of the fact that, in the conciliation, our group has had an important role to play in making these rules as tough as possible, we cannot vote in favour of the final result.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Bonn Conference sent out three political messages of enormous importance. An environmental message, an economic message and one concerning governance. With regard to the environment, this Conference will go down in history as the one that brought to an end the talks and negotiations on climate change that had been dragging on for ten years and the one that enabled us finally to take action. It is true that the agreement is less ambitious that we had hoped and was drawn up mainly at the expense of concessions made in negotiations by the European Union. The alternative to this tiny step forwards, however, would have been incomparably worse. Without the political agreement that was achieved in Bonn, the Kyoto Protocol would be dead and we would have had to waste another ten years working on a global policy to mitigate the damage caused by climate change. I should, therefore, like to congratulate Commissioner Wallström on her excellent role in the political handling of this dossier since her appointment, and I also congratulate her for the announcement she made today about presenting to this House the process of ratifying the Kyoto protocol, the practical measures on the emissions trading system and the European programme for climate change. I should also like to highlight the excellent cooperation maintained between the European Parliament delegation, the Commissioner for the Environment and the Council, through the Belgian Presidency, throughout the Conference. The second message from Bonn is a change in the economic model: from a fire-based, fuel-using economy, to one which is coal-based. In this economy, a ton of coal has a set price and carbon dioxide emissions represent a cost that must be factored into the overall costs of all products and into the annual financial statements of all companies. We will therefore be seeing, in all economic sectors, a conversion to cleaner technologies. Obviously, the competitive advantages will go to those who convert the quickest. This is precisely where the mistake in President Bush’s calculation lies that is already beginning to concern North American businessmen, as we saw in Bonn: In the short term, Kyoto will cost less than was thought and will bring competitive advantages in the medium term. The third message from Bonn concerns globalisation. Climate change has become more than an environmental dossier, it has become an issue that symbolises the environmental regulation of globalisation. The Bonn conference thereby demonstrated, for the first time, that those who have moved quickly and effectively to promote the advantages of globalisation are also able to act to minimise the harmful effects of that same globalisation. This is the great hope that was generated in Bonn: it is possible to find common solutions to global problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
I feel that Mr Duff’s Report is right to focus on the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its future status, for it must be included in the Constitutional Treaty which the next IGC is to draw up at the end of 2003. It must be one of the bases for the conversion of the pillar structure of the Union to a Community structure. As Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, I have noted the increase in the citizens’ requests for protection of their rights, which shows that their relationship with the European institutions, particularly Parliament, is constantly improving. I support the establishment of the ‘European Ombudsman’ to safeguard the financial interests of the Union, of the European arrest warrant and of the mutual recognition of judgments and the work of Europol – institutions which require greater coordination and organisation and a more specific horizontal and vertical division of competences. After the elements of Community law relating to criminal law, I believe it is important to address the civil law elements too and, in particular, the relationship between the citizens and the legal systems of the Member States, some of which need to be reorganised, including the administrative and civil justice systems of my country. Without altering the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States, the Union needs to play a positive role allowing the citizens to benefit fully from the ‘right to justice’. Moreover, the Union must reflect on the issue of the relationship between the citizens and the Court of First Instance with a view to making European justice tangible for the citizens.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I did not request the floor earlier because I did not think that I needed to explain the reasons why our group considers it unnecessary, at the moment, to propose a resolution on an issue which, as has been pointed out, falls within the competence of the Member States, in other words, the regulation of water resources. Furthermore, I have just heard a completely uncalled-for comment which assumes that a Member State’s hydrological plan – which has not yet been implemented, which is at a stage of open planning, and which is still subject to new suggestions and development – violates a framework directive. I am absolutely convinced – and this is also expressed in Commissioner Wallström’s reply to an oral question on this issue – that the Spanish Government’s hydrological plan does not only comply with all aspects of the framework directive, but that it respects it absolutely, and the framework directive will be an essential complement to the successful implementation of our plan. Therefore, because this is entirely an issue involving the management of resources by a Member State, I consider a resolution to be completely unnecessary.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to focus my fellow Members’ attention on a certain important question of major significance for the future of this institution: the matter of the Members’ Statute. I understand that last week the Committee of Permanent Representatives referred Parliament’s proposal for a new Statute back to Parliament for further debate. I would now like to ask here in plenary how Parliament intends to proceed from here so that we may have a new, more transparent and coherent Statute approved before the elections, and what procedure it intends to use to debate this issue so that we may switch to a new and even better system in the forthcoming parliamentary term after the European Parliament elections. I would like to hear your opinion, as President, on the matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I think that the Commission’s update report was very constructive. I also think that Mrs Sandbaek has produced a very sound report. She has produced a whole lot of proposals that strengthen the areas in which the Commission has stated that such strengthening is needed in order to achieve the objectives of combating poverty and these diseases. I want to take paragraph 26 of Mrs Sandbaek’s report, which is very central, as my starting point. This recalls that debt repayment and servicing account each year for almost 40% of the least developed countries’ GDP. That is incredible. I believe that the EU should take the initiative regarding the writing off of debts. Written off debts could also be earmarked so that they are, in the first place, used for efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis and perhaps also for education. In that way, the fight against poverty could really be strengthened and given impetus.

Political group: Verts-ALE