GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on a point of order, I should like to inform the House that the amendments are in order. They are in line with the procedure. It is true that it would have been much better had we had an opportunity to debate this in committee and, as was said at the beginning of the week, that would have been a much better opportunity to have the issue debated. Unfortunately, the decision was taken that this would be put without debate and the amendments are in order. They are extremely important.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, you had a rather thankless task, my dear Mr Monti. I cannot imagine that you felt very comfortable this evening, because I should like to say to you that, although I hear your words, I cannot believe them. That is the problem. For months now, we have been waiting for something which will now – as you have again indicated today – perhaps be available in the summer, God – or whoever is going to do the work you mentioned – willing. I mean, if you take a dossier away from one area of an organisation then you must surely know where you are going to reallocate it. This portfolio has been taken away from people who have actually been doing a fairly good job over the last few months and years. During the course of the project they learnt more about it. Now it has been put on someone else's desk and is in limbo. This is a dreadful state of affairs. It is like a poor orphan. No one really cares about it; no one is really responsible for it. That is why I actually think that what sounded good in theory has not yet developed into anything worthwhile in practice. We have already been waiting for the communication for ages, and I am eager to know when it will be forthcoming. Over and above what is, of course, also in our written contributions, I should like to suggest to the Commission that it, perhaps, does not need to create so very much that is new; instead it should concentrate much more on harnessing those who are doing fantastic work on the spot. They do exist. There are networks which work incredibly well and it should use them. When I consider that you praise the Info-Points here! Well, I know of an Info-Point which is doing a great job, but which cannot survive on the money from the European Commission, which never arrives until the end of the year or the following year. Today they do not know whether they will still exist next year. How are people supposed to work there and be motivated to motivate others? In my view there is much more to be done in this field. Of course, we all of us want to act in concert and to achieve the best results together but this will only work with decentralisation. You said it yourself. So let us not reinvent the wheel, but let us deploy all those who really are able to convey the concept of Europe with local colour, and not only the bit of Europe that is in Brussels! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a journalist is on a fact-finding mission and this calls for freedom. Yet he is taken hostage and treated as a prisoner of war. The war in Chechnya, like any war, is a trail of horrors. The filtration camps are camps in which torture, rape and violations are perpetrated: we know that now. And just what is Mr CFSP doing? Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a full member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, it has been invited to G7 and is a client of the IMF and the World Bank. What are we doing about it? I do not understand why the power centres of Europe are keeping quiet, letting things pass and, by working with the Russians as if nothing were amiss, giving its support to the government which is waging this war. I beg you to intervene. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Behind the ostensibly neutral title ‘on legal bases and compliance with Community law’, the own-initiative report by the Committee on Legal Affairs hides the complete subjugation of national law to Community law. Fully aligned with the philosophy of the ΕU, the report maintains that the Community should have the facility to force the Member States to impose specific criminal sanctions in the event of infringements of Community law. The term ‘criminal sanctions’ carries a great deal of weight, which distinguishes it from the administrative or financial sanctions which the rulers of the ΕU already impose. The report also proposes that the Commission should be able to appear in national criminal courts in order to bring civil actions and even to force the Member States to impose prison sentences decided by the Community. All we need now are Community gaols to carry out Community sentences! This is yet another infringement of national sovereignty and the so-called ‘rule of law’ of the bourgeoisie, in that a supranational body is being instructed to exercise criminal jurisdiction and to decide on the type and level of sanctions. Of course, the anxious search for legal bases hides the ambition to serve the interests of the unifying monopolies in all sectors and the sweeping away of democratic achievements.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Brok made a request at the beginning of his speech and I believe that at the very least this deserves an answer from the Presidency. In any case, I confirm what he said, taking into account, furthermore, that, when the mandate was given for this resolution, the Conference of Presidents consulted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. That is why it appears on the parliamentary staff’s list of votes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, whilst welcoming the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union, I note that 1 January 2003 is the 30th anniversary of the accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, each of which has made a distinctive contribution to this Union. In Britain the 30th anniversary is regarded as the pearl anniversary. Some might regard Britain as the grit in the oyster that has created the pearl. What is being done on 1 January to mark the 30th anniversary of the accession of these three great countries?

Political group: PPE-DE
In a democratic state, political and ethnic minorities have rights, too. This is still not the case in Turkey. Everyone has to bow to the dominant language and culture and to the majority view concerning the lack of rights of ethnic minorities in that country. Anyone who talks a different language, hoists a different flag or forms a party which achieves particularly good results in a specific part of the country is accused of separatism, and residents of regions where a minority forms the majority have suffered much destruction and repression. An ethnic massacre in the past, the one targeted at Armenians in 1915, is still being denied, maybe because the Turkish authorities want to retain the option of doing something similar in the future. The Turkish state does recognise other new states in Europe, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lithuania or Slovakia, but is extremely anxious about the modest requests for self-government and cultural rights of a very large minority people in its own country. For many years, systematic attempts have been made to keep Kurdish parliamentarians outside the Turkish parliament by introducing a 10% election threshold and a ban on political parties. It is therefore important for a European Parliament majority to make it clear to Turkey that it will never acquire a place within the European Union as long as ethnic inequality and repression continue to exist. Report Gahrton (A5-0028/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report before us today is a crucial one. Not only are tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria a cause of suffering for many, many people, they have also became real obstacles to the economic, social and cultural development of entire regions of our planet. Furthermore, they undermine the other initiatives we are taking to create a fairer world. It is therefore vital that the initiative we are considering today, which aims to combat these scourges of poverty by injecting considerable sums of money – over EUR 800 million – into the development of new drugs, should be approved at first reading and implemented as soon as possible, because the situation is urgent. The lives of 5 million people a year are at stake. We have every right to be proud of this important initiative, because it is a model research programme to be jointly undertaken by the European Union, the Member States and associated countries, and we have the right to hope that it will inspire other actions so that similar attention is focussed on other diseases that are taking a heavy toll on the poorest people on our planet. This initiative is, however, also a model for the new philosophy needed for North-South relations – relations which do not involve exploitation, domination or paternalistic aid, but rather relations based on partnerships with a view to promoting the technological independence and development of the countries concerned, and their active participation in the implementation and coordination of the programme. By the same token we should also be considering the price of patented drugs, and the development of public health services in developing countries. I of course have in mind GATS and TRIPS, where the concept of partnership has been swept aside in favour of ideas about intellectual property and liberalisation. I wish to plead once again for cooperation and the development of synergies within the Commission. Lastly, Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Busquin for having given us, through the Sixth Framework Programme, the resources to develop this programme, and I would also like to thank Mr Caudron once again for the quality of his work. I would also like to say that I believe that we are just at the beginning of a long haul.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I assume that the Commissioner with responsibility for these matters is in the building. Should we not perhaps wait half a minute until Mrs de Palacio is here to listen to us?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I apologise for my absence. The report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is an improvement on the Commission proposals but, for all that, it does not make any significant changes in the sheep and goat farming sector. For example, we agree that it is good idea to increase premiums and special aid, which have not risen since 1993 and have since been eroded by inflation. We also agree that it is a good idea to make the conditions for payment of supplementary aid more flexible. However, we do not agree that it is a good idea to maintain the difference between mixed meat and milk production subsidies, which the report justifies on the grounds that mixed production unit holders generate additional income from milk production. This is not comparing like with like because meat production units, which are mainly located in northern countries, are large operations which afford a satisfactory income and profit to their owners, while mixed production units, which are mainly located in the Mediterranean countries, are family-run holdings in the most barren areas which do not afford their owners a viable income, with the result that they are declining year on year and these areas are being abandoned. The headage payments in Greece for each holding have not risen since 1989-1991. The report accepts the philosophy of quotas and even tries to add to it with management quotas, despite the fact that the European Union's self-sufficiency in sheep- and goatmeat is around 80%, sheep and goat farms are to be found in the poorest areas of the European Union, where no alternative form of farming is generally possible, and sheep and goat farmers are the poorest social group in the European Union. If we really wanted to provide income support for these regions and for sheep and goat farmers, we would abolish quotas, increase subsidies and provide other additional incentives. This sort of policy would help to reverse the rate of abandonment of mountain and mainly barren areas and, at the same time, make the European Union self-sufficient in sheep- and goatmeat.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, President-in-Office, for your full reply. Are you aware that whilst the Council is clearly divided on this issue, this House is also divided? There are different views, as my good friend Mr De Rossa is also aware. The fact that here you have a UK Conservative MEP speaking in support of the UK Labour Government and against the opinions of UK Labour MEPs shows that this issue is sensitive and rather complicated. I welcome your comment that you are going to reflect, but I urge you to reflect also on the phrases that you have put into this excellent document – the programme of your presidency – which I particularly welcome. On page 16 you mention the key challenges you are committed to pursuing: encouraging greater adaptability and flexibility on the part of workers and companies and removing disincentives to employment. My own view is that the directive, as drafted, would have done exactly the opposite and cut across the possibility of achieving the Lisbon agenda. Can I have your reassurance that the fulfilment of the Lisbon agenda will indeed colour your entire presidency, as I am confident it will? Good luck, Sir!

Political group: PPE-DE
The European institutions themselves are starting to be ashamed of the minimum standards enshrined in Community legislation on social matters, drawn up any old how, yet while taking good care not to touch employers’ prerogatives in any country whatsoever. The very fact that, with every passing year, additional steps to harmonise the rights of employees moving within the European Union are not taken indicates that, thirty years after the initial directives, there is no more harmonisation than there are Community rights to bring employers to book. Harmonising the situation of EU workers ought to mean that employers and Member States are obliged to bring wages throughout the European Union in line with those of countries where they are highest and to stipulate the same social rights for the whole of the Union in line with the social provision for illness, unemployment and retirement that is most advantageous to the workers. The only form of harmonisation which the European Union is interested in, however, is harmonisation of the rules governing competition between industrial and financial groups. The movement of workers is considered only insofar as it affects the movement of goods and of capital. The reason that we did not vote against this report is only because we did not wish to stand in the way of a few scant benefits that specific categories of workers may gain from it. Since, however, we are completely opposed to the motivation of this approach, we did not vote in favour of it either.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We voted against the report on ‘Public access to Parliament’s documents’ because this is a misleading title and the report aims not so much to widen the possibilities of access as to regulate them and, in doing so, grants the European Parliament the right to restrict public access. On the one hand, we hypocritically acknowledge the right of the public to have access to documents, and, on the other, we admit that some of these documents are ‘confidential’. In actual fact, there is no reason why any document of the European Parliament or any other European institution, should be kept from the public. We are in favour of the complete publication of all documents, all agreements, all treaties, as well as the details of all the speeches that are currently hidden, all the dealings that are kept secret, all the lobbying activities that have led Parliament, the Council or the European Commission to take a decision or to issue a directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is an important report and it must be approved and brought into law across Europe as quickly as possible. For that reason I can confirm that, although the Socialists did not sign the compromise package of amendments, we will support them as we favour most of them and do not wish to hinder bringing them into law. We urgently need this legislation on the quality and safety of tissues and cells across Europe. This is a growing sector, with many new opportunities for the relief of pain and suffering and we do not want to stop anyone taking advantage of it. Many of the diseases and ailments from which people are currently suffering can be cured by various therapies that can be derived from this sector. It is important that, whilst human need is met, standards of health and safety and quality be maintained. Ethical standards on donation, confidentiality, freedom of choice and other issues of concern to individual Member States need to be respected and addressed. I am glad the Commission has recognised that in terms of the amendments it has accepted from Parliament. New technologies, such as embryo stem cell research, cannot be ruled out as sources of future therapies for either medical or ethical reasons. We have gone as far as we can to satisfy those people with specific ethical concerns on those issues and with regard to other new technologies. We must recognise that our primary duty here today is to ensure the quality and safety of tissues and cells that are going to be used for the relief of human suffering, as they move around the single market to various destinations. That is our duty: to give the people of Europe common choice, common opportunities and common relief from many of the diseases and ailments from which they currently suffer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, and those ladies and gentlemen who are not yet present, it is clear to all of us, how significant equity capital and risk capital are in terms of Europe's achievement of the Lisbon objectives. We are glad that clear indications were given in Lisbon of the important role played by efficient risk capital markets in respect of innovative, fast-growing small and medium-sized enterprises and thus also in the creation of new and lasting employment. We are very glad that Lisbon saw the renewed demand made for full implementation of the risk capital action plan by 2003, and that it was made clear that small and medium-sized enterprises are the foundation of technological development and innovation on our continent. We are therefore also most heartened by the result showing that venture capital investments in Europe increased in gross volume from EUR 10 billion in 1999 to EUR 19.6 billion in 2000. Despite this report of success, we are saddened by the fact that we are still a long way behind the United States. Taken as a share of GDP, venture capital investments in 2000 accounted for only 0.23% of Europe's, as against 0.7% in the United States. We must catch up on America, or overtake them, if we want to achieve the Lisbon objectives in this area. It is also important, in this connection to point out – as my predecessor on the floor has done – that the largest sources of finance are the pension funds, followed by insurance and banks. It is, then, all the more regrettable that the Commission proposal for Europe-wide enhancement of occupational retirement provision in the Internal Market as part of the Financial Services Action Plan has to this moment still elicited no official response from the Council, so that we are at the moment unable to negotiate. I also regret the fact that we get the feeling that the so-called compromise proposals in the Council cannot and will not be adopted by either Parliament or the Commission, so that Commissioner Bolkestein, who is responsible for these matters, has now felt constrained to say that, if we make no headway here, the need to get things moving would force him to withdraw his Commission proposal. The Council's behaviour also goes against the Barcelona decisions. We also know that small and medium-sized enterprises have difficulties when it comes to getting access to capital. That is why the Basle Process is so important, as is the fact that the Basle result makes allowances for the private business sector in Europe and does not make access to capital more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. We would, then, also request the Commission, not only to monitor the Basle Process in line with the Barcelona decisions, but also, in the interests of European economic structure and in view of the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises for growth and employment, to actively influence it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
It is a positive step to try to achieve the millennium development objectives, which include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; guaranteeing universal primary education; promoting equality between men and women and giving women a voice; reducing infant mortality; improving mothers’ health; fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; guaranteeing environmental sustainability; and promoting a global partnership for development. It is a positive step to underline the importance of the new commitments made at Johannesburg, even though they are so limited. One must not, however, forget that the failure of the negotiations at the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference at Cancún was due to the refusal of the more-developed countries to find solutions that were fair to the developing countries. They continued to ignore the need to forgive the less-developed countries their debts, and held out for their own priorities, particularly the Singapore issues, rather than the need for fair trade and sustainable development. We therefore demand that the European Union should not take up the four Singapore issues again and should immediately withdraw all the requirements it imposed on other countries during the negotiations on services, particularly the liberalisation of water and other public services.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what an undignified national day it is when the incumbent ruler of Pakistan calls on his own people to actively support the social model when, on the eve of this event, thousands of citizens were incarcerated. The police arrested the very people who fight for solidarity and justice and, instead of arresting activists who have gone underground, they arrest their family members. Among those arrested was Nasrullah Khan, the leader of the democratic renewal movement. The behaviour of the military regime in Pakistan is absolutely unacceptable. Credence can no longer be given to the reassurances and declarations of intention given by its ruler. Pakistan must fulfil its obligations as a member of the United Nations. These obligations include securing freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The position of the Group of the European People’s Party is that it is no longer enough for the international community simply to complain. We call on the Commission to exert all its political clout and fight for the early release of the prisoners. The leader of the military regime, General Musharraf, is responsible for continuing to obstruct a return to democracy and humanity. The stability of the ruler of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan both at home and abroad is just for show. It will only be for real when the ruling of the Supreme Court to allow free national elections is implemented. The deadlines for these elections to take place must be adhered to. Independent parties must be allowed to field candidates. They must stop being exposed to constant pressure. These elections must take place under the supervision of international observers. In the sphere of human rights, the European Union must be active in Pakistan and must involve people who often risk life and limb in campaigning on behalf of human rights issues, namely the NGOs. We are obliged to do this. This would be our contribution to a great national day in Pakistan. Commissioner, we hope we will succeed. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE