GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I think it is only right that we should use most of this afternoon to discuss the smoking heap of ruins that the former Soviet Union has left behind. In fact, the conflict in Dagestan has to do not only with the conflict between the Russian army and militant Islamicists from Chechnya but also with Russia’s weakness, with oil in the Caspian Sea and with poverty in the northern Caucasus which is being increased by the lack of economic support from Moscow. There are perhaps 30 different peoples in Dagestan with just as many different languages. One small group consists of Chechens who are supporting the guerrilla leader Basayev in an attempt to incorporate Dagestan into Chechnya. On the other side there are these fundamentalist Wahabis who want to establish an Islamic state with support from Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden. So the scene is set and all the ingredients are there for a tragedy of inconceivable proportions over the next few years. The local population has so far not supported the Wahabis’ desire for an Islamic state, but things can change. They are one of the poorest republics in the Russian Federation. 80% of young people between the ages of 18 and 35 are unemployed, and the average wage is below the Russian minimum wage. And in Moscow there is not a lot of interest in the situation. Now, the population is receiving a greeting from Moscow in the form of bombings. Moscow is supposed to be protecting the population, of course, but is instead perceived by many as the opposite of a protector, namely as the party which is bombing them. The problem is that journalists dare not travel to the place. They are kidnapped and taken hostage for cash. Nor do I think, therefore, that this Parliament is in a position to express a particularly precise opinion about this tragedy which is now unfolding. But the resolution says what needs to be said, and the most important thing is that we now promise each other to keep a sharp eye open for any means of helping, any means of contributing to stability in this unhappy part of the world.

Political group: ELDR
We have voted in favour of this report because of the improvements it makes to the Council’s initial proposal. It is important for example, that the citizens’ fundamental right to free choice in the field of GMOs is recognised and that account is taken of the precautionary principle, in addition to the need to protect the environment and human health. Equally important is the recognition of the need to support the implementation of Article 27 of the Protocol, at the first session of Conference of the Parties, establishing a framework for the development of an internationally acceptable system in the field of civil responsibility and of compensation for losses and damage caused by GMOs, and to incorporate specific precautions into every aspect of producing foods for human and animal consumption. Nevertheless, the report does not mention vital issues such as the problem of the EU’s dependence on plant protein imports, given the risks inherent in GMOs. It should also be noted that the Council wishes to lift the existing moratorium, an action with which we disagree, as was stated during the vote on the previous report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteurs, a moment ago, we listened to our eccentric visionary, Mr Fatuzzo, who talked about the loss of the Andrea Doria and who referred in that connection to the captain’s fatigue. We are now turning our attention to the Erika and to what preceded and followed that disaster. I think it is wise once again to add a number of important elements to the Erika II package. As Mr Piecyk has already indicated, we will need to make more headway, for things are developing far too slowly at the moment. That does not mean that we are not actually sometimes the cause of those delays ourselves. I am therefore rather critical of the proposal, for example, to extend the compensation fund for oil pollution to include other substances. We would like to see this happen, and with that in mind, I think that Mr Atkins’ contribution might also lead to delay. I would, in fact, like to take the opportunity of congratulating Mr Atkins on his wife’s appointment and of offering my sympathy for the defeat of the Conservatives. I think I share rapporteur Esclopé’s view that we should not decide on any separation of either activity until this appears to be appropriate and until we are in follow-up negotiations. However, in this case, as in other cases, we very much welcome an extension of the funds as soon as possible. We would wish to see a number of amendments re-tabled because some issues got lost at sea in our committee, either because we lacked one vote or there was a tie. That is partly caused by the fact that so many parties are involved in setting up the funds. In our opinion, if the ‘polluter pays’ principle applies, all relevant shipowners, shippers, etc. should be involved in the setting up of those funds. Regarding the fund management, we do feel that the Commission, backed by all environmental organisations and local authorities, has a considerable role to play.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I will mainly speak on the same subject the last speaker finished on. What we are concerned with is macro-economic financial assistance for those countries. That means that the European Union only acts as an intermediary in obtaining funds. The money is borrowed on the international markets and passed on to these countries for their use. The European Union can guarantee that the cost of borrowing is less than it would be if these countries borrowed the funds directly from the international markets. The aid to be given to Macedonia is the most problematic of these financings, because in this instance it is not only a case of a loan, but also of a grant, to be paid over two years. The Council has decided on this form of financing, but it made the decision without the corresponding funds being available. The Committee on Budgets draws its attention to this fact. If the Financial Perspective is not revised, we will have to adjust other budget lines under heading 4, “External Action”, and in order to secure the aid to Macedonia, we will find ourselves cutting aid to other areas. With this kind of financial aid, it cannot be the intention that, in order for one country to receive, money should be taken away from others. For this reason, the Committee on Budgets has proposed to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy that it should demand a revision of the Financial Perspective in this regard, and positive reference has been made to this in the report. Examination of the Financial Perspective is, in any case, an important matter and is linked in its entirety to the question of what the financial basis is or, in other words, to the fact that the war in Kosovo has brought about a situation which is unexpected and new and which had not been catered for by the Financial Perspective. This is also linked directly to an examination of the Financial Perspective, which must be carried out on account of the aid to Kosovo, the funds to rebuild areas of Turkey devastated by the recent earthquakes and on account of the agreement on fishing with Morocco. Neither is it unconnected with the fact that at this moment in time there are not sufficient funds available to realise all those projects in Category 4 which the Council and the Commission want to realise and which they have proposed. The response of Parliament to the form proposed by the Committee on Budgets is that it is important in connection with this issue to examine the Financial Perspective and in this way also to ensure that general aid from Parliament and from the European Union really does reach its destination and also to safeguard the possibility of bringing these matters to a favourable conclusion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, in order to safeguard the freedom of movement of persons within the European Union, it is essential to safeguard their social security rights. The work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Lambert, is thus of the greatest importance, and I congratulate her. The fact is that nobody should fall outside the existing social security systems of the European Union, including third-country nationals, though that issue has been dealt with elsewhere. I also believe, however, that there should not be a comprehensive list of social security regimes covered by coordination in this case. This will give us room to make additions later on, as and when problems arise. I would like to emphasise that the Commission’s own proposals and innovations, aimed at updating the regulation (which, as we know, dates from 1971), are to be welcomed. We must go further, though, without forgetting the regulation’s four principles, as the rapporteur points out. I would lay particular emphasis on certain proposals aimed at improving the draft presented to Parliament, above all: the recognition that people leaving employment in one Member State for family reasons should not consequently lose the right to unemployment benefit in their new country of residence; the extension of the provisions to refugees, stateless persons and their families resident in Member States; definitions of frontier workers, refugees and stateless persons and their rights, although those rights should also be extended to their families; recognition of the rights of retired frontier workers, the extension of the concept of the family and the inclusion of paternity leave; the improved situation of people with disabilities, which has already been mentioned, preventing them from temporary loss of entitlement to disability benefits or from having to claim those benefits afresh; the opportunity, also afforded here, for two or more Member States to conclude conventions with each other based on the principles and in the spirit of the regulation. I can only regret, however, the various attempts to undermine the social security systems of different Member States, mine in particular. This could jeopardise the true reach of several of the rights we are upholding here. That is why I am calling for these proposals to be taken into account, and also for all attempts to undermine the social security systems of the Member States be reviewed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Although we think very highly of the Commissioner, it is true that we did not imagine he had developed a secret strategy of such a kind that the hidden list was of his own making. However, now that this list is before us, I see that the Commissioner has said that if we make a request, not one single country will be forced to endorse something which they do not want. They decide for themselves what the public sector represents. As I understand it, the Commissioner works on the principle of commitment, and I would like to ask him whether he can confirm once more that as far as he is concerned – and this is also a dynamic between the Commission and Parliament – this commitment in principle means that whatever we do not want to do to ourselves or ask of ourselves – for example in the field of water or in education, health care or other sectors – we will not impose on others either. And that, should we deviate from this, we will have a careful exchange of views beforehand. In my view, it is crucial for us to be well acquainted with this political commitment, this clear line. And furthermore, I believe that Johannesburg is probably a good place to ensure that as far as water is concerned, access remains in public hands, but that financing from private sources could possibly be further developed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this common position was again voted through with a narrow majority. The Commission and the rapporteur have failed to recognise that the art trade is a global business and would be better regulated by an international agreement. We now fear that the art market will go offshore. The Commission, again, has failed to commit itself to entering international negotiations to get an international deal on droit de suite, claiming that it feels it does not have a mandate in this area. It now does have a mandate with the voting through and the start of the conciliation procedure. The Commission has also failed spectacularly to give us any analysis of the economic impact of the directive before us. This leads us to conclude that it is not proven to be necessary to complete the single market. It cannot, therefore, be the objective of this Parliament to undermine the European art market and in conciliation I hope now that the Member States and Commission will be able to maintain the common position. The amendments that Mr Zimmerling has tabled will deal a death blow to the vitality to the European art market, with loss of jobs and, I fear, very few living artists benefiting from this resale right.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the pharmaceutical industry is not doing all that well. There is a lack of innovation. That is why there is the temptation to provide better protection for existing products or produce minor variations on them, and prices remain unacceptably high. Your communication is therefore very well-timed. You were both right in saying that the patient must be placed at the centre of the debate, but the question is, of course, who that patient is. As one of the previous speakers already remarked, patients in developing countries are still faced with a shortage of medicines. In actual fact, no, or hardly any, research is being done into diseases of the developing countries. I would therefore want to ask you what initiatives you intend to take in order to give research into the neglected diseases a shot in the arm, so much so that the pharmaceutical industry as a whole will also enjoy the benefits.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur and Mrs Attwooll for providing the opinion for the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. It is a pity that this is beginning to sound like a British debate, because a number of the issues here actually apply right across the European Union. As we have heard, the case provides an example of just one of the many anomalies which occur in employment law in many of our Member States. Generally of course these only come to light when people want to cross borders to work and find that their employment status changes and thus their rights to social security and employment-related rights change as well. In this case, as we have been hearing, we are looking at a national situation in which historical anomalies, and to some extent theological anomalies, have led to an unacceptable situation which has already been clearly outlined. We found that the Reverend Owen discovered that the means open to him to seek adjudication of his case lay either within the body against which he wished to complain – thus making this body judge, jury and defendant, one of the minimum standards that we do not want to see applied across the European Union – or with a judicial review which can examine the process but not the content of the complaint. As the Commissioner has already pointed out, it appears that the situation is legally correct. Morally, however, it is certainly is not correct. The European Union seeks to establish at least satisfactory core standards in its employment law and expects Member States to implement these standards, and the spirit of them, across the board. My group therefore fully supports the call for Member States to review their employment practices to ensure that situations where individuals are denied access to normal dispute resolution procedures in employment are as few as possible, can be fully and objectively justified, and that redress is available in other forms. We also support the call for clear definitions of employment status to be used. We raised this issue in the discussions on the insolvency directive and will be doing so again in connection with the coordination of social security systems.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the parliamentary delegation that was in Yugoslavia a few days ago saw a Yugoslavia, a Serbia, in transition. The future shape of the country is the subject of intensive discussion, and there is much talk of decentralisation, even in Serbia itself, and of a new relationship with the ethnic minorities. Another subject that is frequently discussed is the need to strengthen local government and, particularly in southern Serbia, the need to give the Albanian minority fair representation in the local authorities, where the rules have hitherto been stacked against them. Every act of violence, whether in southern Serbia or in Mitrovica, disrupts the painstaking peace process that is currently taking place in the Balkans. The Yugoslav and Serb authorities must naturally take a firm line in their dealings with the minorities. That is what we in Parliament have always advocated and will continue to advocate, and there is no room for compromise there. It is important, however, that the measures taken should be realistic. Elections in Kosovo are certainly one such measure, but they must be preceded by a precise definition of the powers and authority that the elected representatives will have. The present problems cannot be solved overnight. They can only be solved by a consensus of all interested parties, states and ethnic groups. That is a complex process, and I entirely agree with Mrs Pack, perhaps not in detail but certainly in principle, that Europe must take the initiative here, because none of the parties in the Balkans enjoys the level of trust that would enable it to launch a successful peace initiative at this stage. Only the European Union enjoys that level of trust. Neither the United States of America nor Russia nor any of the Balkan States and societies have the requisite degree of authority. And if Europe were caught napping now, that would pose serious problems. I can only agree with another of the previous speakers, Mr Posselt, on the money issue. We already pay out enough in the world and in particular regions without having a stabilising influence. It must be different in the Balkans. We are willing to pay, but we also want to have a say, so that stability and peace can be established in the region. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, if the preceding speakers are to be believed, we now have paradise in view. The Chinese, in particular, are heading there and nowhere else. I was reading an interview in China Labour Bulletin the other day about one of the tens of millions of Chinese who have become unemployed because of the famous ‘opening up’ of their country. This person was complaining about the unemployment, insecurity and enormous widening of the gulf between the classes. In fact, this Chinese person was so desperate that she said she wished Mao Tse Tung was back. From all the analyses I have read, which is quite a lot (both Chinese and Western, liberal and , it is apparent that unemployment is coming to China. It has already increased a great deal and, through accession to the WTO, it is going to increase a very great deal more. I am wondering now if the Commission has carried out any other analyses. I wonder if the Commission has any serious scientific analyses indicating that unemployment in China, contrary to what is apparent from all these other analyses, is going to decline rapidly and that social stability is going to be strengthened instead of the gulf between social classes widening further. It would be extremely interesting to know. Another matter is that of human rights. A number of people here believe that human rights should benefit from China’s accession to the WTO. Yes, that is possible – I am no fortune-teller. Parliament did, however, give the Sakharov Prize to Wei Jingsheng, who has a quite different view of this issue. His assessment is that the WTO Agreement will not benefit human rights at all. He has actively fought against it because he thinks that it does not make reasonable demands where human rights are concerned. It would be extremely interesting to know what are the Commission’s and the Council’s analyses of this question. In what way is Wei Jingsheng mistaken? We should like to know that we are not doing anything which, contrary to our intentions, is unfavourable to human rights.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I voted in favour of this Conciliation Delegation Report but with some misgivings. The planning process is a key element of sustainable development as, because it covers land-use, it sets the physical framework for the way in which we live. Unfortunately, this agreement does not fully follow the Aarhus Convention as it does not allow the public to be fully involved in the development of policy which frames planning decisions. As the drafter of the opinion from the Petitions Committee on this proposal, we made the point that many petitions arise from the failure to consult adequately at the strategic stage. This is another democratic deficit. As an advert from British NGOs said when commenting on changes to English and Welsh planning law: ‘Here's the new nuclear power station. What colour would you like the gates?’ Neither do they allow for third parties to be involved in the full process. This potentially removes expertise from the procedure and does not fulfil the sustainability objective of all of us having responsibility for our environment. Overall, however, I welcome the inclusion of the granting of certain operating permits in these Directives and the great accountability required of decision-making bodies. Hence my positive vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, in particular on their close cooperation, because the interrelated nature of the package requires the reports to be relatively interdependent. I would also like to mention that the committee of which I am chairman has worked well on this matter, as always. It is no coincidence that, during 2002, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism initiated 34 reports in the transport sector, seven of which focused precisely on the modernisation of the railways. It is quite clear, however, that the committee is concerned by certain delays in the Council and has made this clear in more or less formal terms. I, personally, have even written a letter to the Danish Presidency, and I will reiterate these same points to the Greek Transport Minister, Mr Verelis, who is coming to visit the committee and attend a hearing next week. The first railway package is closely related to the second railway package and, just like the carriages of a train, they must move forward, or else there will be a real danger of a kind of rail traffic jam. The second railway package is important, and I would like to say that our approach is not an ideological promotion of the railways, of which we are sometimes accused. I believe that the case of freight transport is extremely significant: the use of the railways is continuing to decline, despite all the good intentions expressed. When I consider specific cases which are particularly important to me such as the trans-Alpine routes, I find this totally unacceptable. I regret to say that there is no genuine European rail network. We are building it with these directives. It is strange that, with all their areas of sovereignty taken away from them, the only one remaining for the States in Europe is a kind of railway sovereignty, which we have got to break up and reshape in a European mould.

Political group: ELDR