GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am as in favour of progress as you are and I support the Lisbon strategy for joining the computerised era, but I very much fear that this vote, under these circumstances, where the Members have not had the opportunity to take lessons, raises many problems. I would recommend... (Mixed reactions) Excuse me, but this is a right of every Member under the Rules of Procedure. I would recommend that the vote be carried out by means of secret ballot papers.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer. In my question I referred to similar examples and whilst car prices are perhaps the most widely publicised, there are other examples of companies that are making a mockery of the single market. The Swedish Ikea furniture company, with which you will probably be familiar, provides two examples in their recent catalogues: a mirror cabinet which costs less than GBP 70 if purchased in Denmark costs GBP 94 in the United Kingdom. A corner sofa which costs less than GBP 600 in Denmark costs nearly GBP 875 in the United Kingdom. These are just two examples taken from one company. There are plenty of others where people in the United Kingdom and, for all I know, other Member States, are being exploited by companies. I wonder if the Commission can consider some action to protect consumers who are looking to the European Parliament, looking to the European Commission to protect them as citizens. Can you consider some action in this area, not just limiting it to cars, which is perhaps the most publicised example?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am naturally not entirely satisfied with your response. That is hardly surprising. I do have some understanding for the time aspect. It is important for matters to be looked into thoroughly, but I share your view entirely that paper is not sufficient. There is a saying in Dutch, ‘papier is geduldig’ [paper can wait], and I am certain that this proverb also exists in other languages. Implementation is the most important aspect, and the inspectorates should therefore show a very high level of independence in order to actually monitor implementation. Indeed, we often note that candidate countries go out of their way to create the impression that all is well. Turkey is, in fact, unable to do this at the moment, for extremely tragic events are unfolding in Turkish prisons, and – although I do not wish to discuss this now – there are still people who are risking their lives, or having them endangered by others, on a daily basis because no dialogue is being entered into. This approach seems to be at odds with the sound measures taken on behalf of minorities. I hope that the Troika can be firm but fair in its conclusions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Kyoto is clearly one of the major challenges for the 21st century, yet the way that we resolve the issue of climate change may greatly affect future civilisation. Parliament must therefore repeat its formal reservations about the right to pollute system, otherwise known as the flexibility mechanism. If we really want to solve the enormous problem of the greenhouse effect, we cannot operate a system in which everything can be bought and sold, including the right to pollute. This is not true to our values and it will create profound inequalities. We could take as an example the situation in the former Soviet Union, in what is now Russia. This country is in decline and its development is threatened. There is therefore enormous potential for it to trade its rights to pollute. So the Americans, taking advantage of their status as a rich country, and despite having imposed this mechanism on us, supposedly to ensure the application of the Kyoto decisions, are not only not applying these decisions themselves but are also manoeuvring to trade these infamous rights to pollute with Russia. The richest countries can therefore pay to keep the rest under-developed so that they themselves do not have to make the efforts which they could. This is unacceptable and Europe must say so. Regardless of the Americans, Europe must say that it will ratify the Kyoto Protocol without getting involved in the right to pollute system. The Commission must talk to Russia to ensure that it does not engage in these talks with the Americans and so that we can find other ways forward together. Finally, Europe must act within its Member States and at Community level. I would suggest that Europe and the Commission pursue two initiatives. The first concerns the excellent work initiated by Jacques Delors on piggyback transport and the major non-polluting transport infrastructures to replace the lorry and the car. This work must finally be taken forward with financing from the European Union. The second, in the car sector, involves establishing a renewal strategy for old cars, in addition to the standards which we have adopted, given that these cars produce considerably more pollution than newer vehicles.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council has just called this problem a ‘natural disaster’. I should like to ask him why he attributes natural causes to a disaster that has clearly occurred as the result of political and therefore preventable reasons? A natural disaster is clearly something quite different. This is like calling a crash involving several cars or lorries on a motorway a natural disaster! It is other types of causes that need to be cleared up. I feel that the Greek Presidency is getting off to a bad start on this matter if it thinks that this is really a natural disaster. I would ask: why are you calling this a natural disaster, which I believe is a complete misnomer?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, today’s debate was intended to represent a small step forward in the liberalisation process of the postal services. I have yet to see an internal market topic which has caused so much misinformation, emotions and bitter reproaches to be exchanged. One of those reproaches concerns countries which are now professing liberalisation, but have not made any changes at home. According to my Spanish colleagues – and I would like to check this out with the Commissioner – Spain has transposed the 1997 Directive in its entirety, others have not done anything, and those who have not done anything would now like to take huge steps to make up the difference. Mr Bolkestein, the Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties. Is this true, and if so, what steps have you taken? Also, I would appreciate it if you could outline exactly to what extent the old directive has been transposed in the different countries. Spain’s attitude in this matter is proving to be absolutely crucial. The misinformation has been about people in favour of liberalisation. They are also supposed to be against the universal provision of services as a matter of course. This is simply not true. Quite the reverse in fact: the concept of universal services is ideally suited to solve problems encountered in rural areas and areas which are difficult to access, via agreements and, if need be, compensatory funding. However, I am firmly opposed to monopolists who do not tolerate anybody on their home patch but take the liberty of making their purchases on liberalised markets. Who distributes the post in Sweden? Who can compete in Sweden on a free market? The Royal Mail, which Mr Simpson takes such an indulgent attitude towards. He has tabled an amendment on the public/private relationship. But to be absolutely certain that nobody could take this amendment further, he only submitted a recital and not an article. Fortunately, there is a directive in place which prescribes transparency for public companies, and I can assure you that gross subsidies will be monitored at very close range. No more public money to spend within liberalised markets. Go and play on your own turf. I trust the Commissioner will promise that he, together with Commissioner Monti, will exercise extra vigilance. I would like to finish off with one last observation. I am extremely disappointed at Parliament’s conservatism. We are voting tomorrow, and I hope the amendments by Mr Atkins or Mr Sterckx will be adopted, otherwise I will have no choice but to vote against this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, after this memorable, perhaps even historic weekend, we should be making even more use of our right to ask questions. Is what we are doing here really necessary? Do we need it to the extent envisaged? Is it not rather surprising that a fellow Member who generally lobbies for as little regulation as possible is now working in such technical detail? Is it really a success for Europe if we have now more precise knowledge about the measures on beer glasses in Great Britain? I doubt it very much. Are we not on the wrong track? Is it not precisely this form of regulation, which concerns neither product liability nor very clear principles, that is likely to lead us in quite the wrong direction? Surely we need genuine transparency in our work, and that includes what we are doing here. If we look around the group of fellow Members here, surely all we are doing is just patting each other on the back, with very high costs for the taxpayer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against Mrs Damião's report because Amendment No 23 was not adopted. I am in favour of maintaining the moratorium on genetically modified food, but on no account do I oppose research and biotechnology in general.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my view, Mrs Theorin's report goes a long way towards meeting the requirement that women should have equal social status. She has chosen her words carefully in denouncing violations of women's dignity and in demanding action to achieve change. The report not only refers to the social exclusion of women as a problem in itself, it also rightly emphasises that protection against criminality and personal safety are no longer something that can be guaranteed solely within national borders. I therefore support the demands made in the report for women to be given the right to diplomatic influence. I support the initiative taken in this report and I support the statement contained in it that sexually abused women need the Community's protection and that it is high time the perpetrators stopped going unpunished. Women and men, and people in general, are all different. Equal opportunities means treating people differently – but how they are treated is still determined by the people themselves.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I could not fail to give an explanation of vote on my friend, Mr Bushill-Matthews' report, upon which I have already spoken during the debate. This time, however, I would like to state that my vote for the motion is also a call for Mr Bushill-Matthews to accept, at a later date, an amendment which I tabled and which, I regret to say, has been rejected this time. I am calling, that is, for funds to be allocated to small and medium-sized businesses which follow the practice of setting up a company where a young entrepreneur who is full of enthusiasm and the will to work is aided by an older – senior – entrepreneur who knows everything there is to know about the business, is very experienced and can pass on his skills, and, even though he has no real wish to work long hours, would be happy to give the youngsters the benefit of his experience.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a co-author of this resolution I am proud that I spoke out in June of this year in this Chamber against the brutality and medieval obscurantist policies of the Taliban government, when they chose to destroy the beautiful Buddhist statutes in Bamiyan. This was well before they, and their tragic country, became the focus of the world on 11 September, as the Taliban's link with the perpetrators of the attack on the USA became clear to everybody. Afghanistan is now at an historical crossroad. I, as a British MEP, am proud of the role played by the courageous troops from my country in helping America rid Afghanistan of its oppressive masters and end their harbouring of international terrorists bent on the destruction of western values, including women's rights. I salute particularly those who have been wounded in the campaign and hope, as the UK is about to become a major component of the UN peacekeeping force, that no further casualties will ensue. Two weeks ago I was invited to meet a representative from the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women and I, as a Conservative, baulked initially at the title 'revolutionary'. However, after my meeting I decided that, in Afghanistan, my western views on social and political rights for women would no doubt, in the eyes of the old mujaheddin guard, such as President Rabbani, classify me, too, as a revolutionary. I welcome the participation of two women in the interim government and I am hopeful that the new generation of younger, progressive and modern political leaders will see the way to establish a new order based on equality of the sexes and on full political and social rights enshrined in their international treaty obligations, and cease to regard women and their role as a purely economic one and a procreative one and banish them to invisibility in their burkas. Women were once, in the 1960s and 1970s, welcomed by the government of King Mohammed Zahir Shah as full participating members of society in their professions, in higher education and in politics. I hope that Afghanistan can return to this form of moderate secular government again, and make use of the huge pool of talent residing in more than 50% of its population.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not the first time that this Parliament has discussed issues concerning the violation of human rights by the Turkish Government. Unless we are seen to defend the charters and treaties which we have designed ourselves, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and legislation on human rights, then we run the risk of becoming a laughing stock within the international community. I personally have had occasion in the past to condemn the Turkish Government for the imprisonment without trial of many among the Kurdish community, as I have also condemned the 14-year imprisonment sentence imposed on Leyla Zana and three of her colleagues. They all campaigned for the rights of the Kurds and in 1995 Leyla Zana won our own European Parliament Sakharov Prize. A retrial of Leyla Zana was ordered following a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg, a court the international community established itself, because the original trial of Leyla Zana and her colleagues was deemed not to be equitable. Once again we have to raise in this Parliament a further breach of human rights standards in the wake of a search of the Ankara headquarters of the Human Rights Association of Turkey. The Human Rights Association performs internationally recognised work in the realm of human rights in Turkey and provides Members of this Parliament with invaluable data on human rights atrocities. Therefore we regard it as a violation of the defence of human rights when the promotion of these standards is thus impeded. Is it any wonder that some of us once more ask whether Turkey's request for membership of the European Union should be supported? For the record, the Human Rights Association has found that 183 people were subjected to torture, ill-treatment and detention in Turkey in the first quarter of this year alone. A Union presidency that prides itself on defending the human rights of minorities and the oppressed everywhere cannot stand by and allow such violations to continue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am one of those MEPs who need to travel for 24 hours in order to be here by 5.00 p.m. I say this because I have spent half an hour trying to talk about the Minutes of the sitting of Friday, 7 July of this year. On Friday, 7 July, on behalf of the Group, I tabled an amendment to Mrs Peijs’s report, which was fortunately accepted. However, the amendment has not been correctly translated into Spanish since, where it talks about the peripheral regions, I wished to refer, and I in fact did refer, to the outermost regions of the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I intend to concentrate on the democratic aspects of Malta’s accession. What happened in Denmark has demonstrated that, as matters stand, the EU’s grasp of democracy meets with criticism and rejection on the part of the citizens – and I would say these are citizens who take a special interest and are well informed. Malta is only to be allowed four MEPs, if the proposals tabled by Dimitrakopoulos and Leinen are anything to go by. If the Leinen proposal is adopted, then this will lead to discrimination against the small countries and against the new small parties in the smaller Member States. This will reduce the political diversity of debate. If Malta is only permitted four MEPs then this will further entrench the two-party system over there, which has been founded on confrontation for decades, and it will hinder political innovation. Malta should be represented by a minimum of six MEPs, like the other smaller Member States. Democracy is not just about majorities, more than anything it is about minorities being given commensurate codecision powers. I hope that is the spirit in which Malta will accede to the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in 1950 Robert Schuman launched the idea of a European Coal and Steel Community open to all States, thereby creating the basis for the complex and difficult journey of European unification, the most recent developments of which we are now experiencing. Even then the importance of steel in the European context was clear. I am not surprised therefore that the debate in this Parliament concerning the ‘Terni case’ has aroused so much interest and the opinions expressed have to a large extent not been dependent on political affiliations. The European iron and steel sector is currently suffering as a result of the decision taken by the US to impose import duties on steel, principally from the European Union. The crisis in Italy is important because it involves other iron and steel centres, like the steel plant in Genoa-Cornigliano. In that context, the announcement by Thyssen Krupp, the owner of the Terni iron and steel plant, that it is going to invest in South Korea to produce steel in Asia is of major importance and is causing a good deal of concern. As you know, the Terni plant was sold in 1994 as part of the process of privatisation promoted by the Institute for Reconstruction of Industry (IRI), subject to a guarantee that its activities would continue in Italy and that jobs would be protected. This is not a company in crisis but a company that produces a leading-edge product used to make thin metal sheets for electronic transformers. Furthermore, there are no other factories of this type in Italy. The technology used at Terni and the studies and research carried out in recent years are of an extremely high standard. Losing skills and know-how is exactly the opposite of the knowledge economy to which President Prodi recently referred in this Parliament. It is no coincidence that directors, managers, researchers and local politicians lined up alongside the workforce to fight on behalf of the product and the research associated with it. About 900 workers are likely to lose their jobs, not counting the knock-on effects. We cannot, therefore, ignore the fact that the German multinational received funds and tax breaks from the European Union when it decided to acquire the Terni plant. I also wonder what the significance is, in global terms, of transferring production to Korea, what technological skills workers employed in South-East Asia have, what trade union rights they have and whether those rights will be observed. At a meeting last December, some European Union industrial manufacturers in the footwear and textiles sector posed a number of questions concerning those matters to the delegation from China, which is preparing itself to become the factory of the world. The replies were extremely evasive and we had no grounds for thinking that elsewhere on the continent – with the exception of Japan – the situation was any better. Above all, in a market economy based on competition the rules must ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I congratulate the four rapporteurs on their work, and in particular Baroness Ludford for carrying forward work that I, amongst others, helped to initiate nearly a decade and a half ago with the first Committee of Inquiry into Racism and Fascism in Europe, whose rapporteur, in fact, was an excellent member of the Christian Democrat Group and of Nea Dimokratia, Dimitrios Evregenis, of whose work Mr Le Pen has said that he will use all means possible to prevent its being put into practice. I wish to make two comments with respect to the reports in front of us; one on the Belder report, which contains a version of an amendment which I have tabled concerning the treatment of the Russian-speaking minorities in Estonia and Latvia. I believe it has a place here. What was happening 15 years ago in Austria was that Mr Haider was actually persecuting the Slovene-speaking minority there. Very few of us wanted to stand up and say anything at the time. We need to tell the Estonians and the Latvians that, if they continue that treatment, their prospects of joining the European Union will be that much less. Secondly, the Ludford report has a series of amendments tabled by the challenging a series of paragraphs that were originally in the Evregenis report 15 years ago – and were approved by the then – on the amendment of the Staff Regulations to allow ethnic minority members to join the European Community staff. On voting rights, on the selection of ethnic minority candidates, what I do not understand is whether they have no institutional memory or whether, a more sinister development, their political position has changed.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is about Amendment No 25. I would like to say that the text of this amendment is entirely compatible with the rapporteur’s text, and, for this reason, I think that it should be voted on as a supplement. And, because it is entirely compatible, we should vote in favour of it. - Relating to Amendment No 18

Political group: PPE-DE