GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we have just heard Mr Lannoye and Mrs Morgantini present their excellent reports, which we totally support. This also gives us an opportunity to adopt the reports before the WTO Ministerial Conference opens in Cancún, and I hope that Commissioner Lamy, who will be representing the EU next week, will oblige us by taking the reports into account as part of his negotiating mandate, especially as regards the key issue of preventing water privatisation. I am sure my friend Mr Lannoye will not hold it against me if I say I attach particular importance to Mrs Morgantini's report. The Commission wants to help the developing countries to take advantage of trade. The question is, will the WTO's rules allow them to do that? I am not sure, given the disagreements that currently divide the developing countries and the western countries over the Singapore Issues, for example, that the European Union is best placed to support the position of the countries of the South, as it has its own interests to defend, the most striking examples being agriculture and fisheries. Helping the developing countries to take advantage of trade first and foremost means changing the rules governing trade to make them more favourable to developing countries. The countries of the South were first encouraged to export commodities with low added value, only to have restrictions imposed on them, and they are now reeling from the impact of the fall in commodity prices and the problems in accessing markets in the countries of the North. As for the WTO, it does not so much regulate markets as liberalise trade. For example, the common market organisations for coffee and cotton and the price stabilisation systems for raw materials have at present simply disappeared. What is more, does helping countries really mean helping their populations? Do the hypothetical benefits of trade really go to the poorest people, or do they get no further than the top of the ladder in these countries? Promoting fair trade is still the only viable long-term strategy. On the one hand, we have to pay the producers in the countries of the South a fair price for their commodities; on the other hand, there is an urgent need to open up our markets to imports from developing countries and to abandon subsidies to our farmers. To that extent, the Cancún conference gives some room for optimism. I hope they will not be disappointed. It is only by changing and diversifying their production that the developing countries will really be able to establish their independence and play a key role in world trade. The Commission's efforts should be directed towards achieving that objective, and this is the issue that the Cancún conference should focus its work on. Helping developing countries to develop their trade above all means helping the populations of those countries to try to live a better life. Can trade be a means of ensuring a better life? I do not doubt that it can, but it is certainly not the only way.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we would like to congratulate the rapporteur for having brought together two sensitive issues which many of us would prefer not to see linked since the question of security often provides a questionable alibi, feeding the prejudices of those who prefer to restrict asylum and develop a policy of deterrence towards those needing to exercise their individual and fundamental rights. We are pleased that we can concur with the rapporteur on his statements on the need to uphold human rights and civil liberties. We believe that civil liberties are not secondary to security; we are told that a key value of the European Union is the protection of freedom, justice and civil liberties, and we agree with the last speaker that we need to be vigilant on this. We also fully support the view that the governing principle must be that of international obligations, fairly and humanely applied. So for example, we can agree with paragraph 12, that immediate and general detention should be avoided. We also fully support conclusion 5 of the report, which stresses the need for an holistic approach towards asylum and immigration looking at this as a horizontal policy objective and considering all policy areas, particularly those with an external dimension, such as trade, development, environment and agriculture. We have long argued that we need to look at the effect of European Union policies in acting as push factors, and after Johannesburg we must be even more aware that what we are aiming for is sustainable development, reducing the causes of seeking asylum. We trust that will form part of the open coordination. We agree with the number of concerns raised about open coordination: in a number of other policy areas, it has almost become a democracy bypass, leaving out the European Parliament and often also national parliaments. But we hope that, through the open coordination method, solutions to difficult issues, such as finding best practice for legal entry for asylum seekers and other immigrants, will be found.

Political group: Verts-ALE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – I, too, congratulate both the rapporteurs, Mr Cashman and Mr Mann, on their excellent work. This package of legislation will open a new and radical chapter in the EU's history of commitment to securing equal opportunities and combating the modern scourge of discrimination. This Parliament will send a clear message in our vote to all our citizens that we intend to improve Member States' record in ensuring respect for equal treatment, irrespective of age, race, disability and sexual orientation. For individuals in my constituency this legislation is long overdue. However, I regret that some of the Christian Democrat Members in the Committee on Legal Affairs, in voting against the employment directive, saw it as unnecessary because it would, and I quote: 'restrict freedom of choice in private life'. But I ask you: whose freedom? The freedom of those who continue to discriminate against individuals? That is a freedom that this House should not seek to protect – it is neither Christian nor democratic! In addition, their view is that cases of discrimination are not so numerous as to warrant any legislation. Perhaps they ought to talk more to their local constituents and those who suffer from discrimination. It is also best to give local examples to show how this legislation is relevant. In my constituency a retired head teacher from Manchester who is over 70 years of age, with much experience, was appointed to serve on the police authority by Manchester City Council. Following a complaint about her age, she was told she was too old to take up the position and not eligible, according to the current British Police Act. This legislation, therefore, is good for individuals like her. UK employment legislation will now have to be reviewed to ensure that ability, not age, determines who gets the job. Indeed the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, is now reviewing the legislation to remove such anomalies of discrimination. Discrimination, in whatever forms it exists, whichever group it affects, is wasteful and unacceptable, as the Confederation of British Industry has said. Again I quote: 'some enlightened employers are realising the potential of employing people from right across the board, from all walks of life. In another company in my constituency, B[amp]Q, the grey revolution has begun. In Macclesfield one of their stores is staffed by only over 50 year olds and their oldest employee is 86! I think that is a very good example to follow. This legislation will encourage employers to seek to use the talents, the ability, the experience of all people in our society. It is the biggest overhaul of discriminatory legislation that we will ever see in Europe and back in our own Member States. Yes, it will create changes in employment law, yes, it will create changes in general legislation and for the courts, but I do not believe this Parliament or the European Union can shy away from making those changes which will open up a world of opportunity for groups which have suffered for too long from the cancer of discrimination.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to respond to Mr Nielson's statement that my explanatory memorandum gave false information about what development NGOs had said in relation to his own consultation arrangements. I do not regard Mr Nielson as someone who is thin-skinned, but I believe that statement did not do him justice. It may be true that Mr Howitt may be wrong, as may the NGOs, but is it not equally true that so might the Commission? For the record, comments were properly made to me pointing out that there is insufficient NGO involvement in agenda preparation and presentation in the Commission's twice-yearly meetings with Brussels-based development NGOs. The NGOs I consulted are part of the public record. Indeed, I produced an appendix to my report that listed them and this was passed to the Commissioner's service. Perhaps, rather than rejecting the criticism, the Commissioner should reflect on why – if it is true – it might be that NGOs are saying something slightly different to him than they are saying to this Parliament. Good governance is surely an issue for all of us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I know Mr Leinen to be an upright and honourable colleague. It could well be, though, that, for a change, he had an ulterior motive for the form of words he had drafted and wanted to make my life difficult. So I will take this opportunity to reiterate what I told Mr Leinen when he was guiding my hand to where I should sign. I told him, ‘If I sign, I do so not as Chairman of my group, but in my own name, modest person that I am.’ (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to request that we check we have a quorum before proceeding to the vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, once again we are debating the European Union’s competition policy. But let us stop to consider the circumstances in which this debate is taking place and the conclusions to which it should bring us. The overriding features of today’s economy are massive mergers and acquisitions involving huge companies with a market monopoly and the emergence of frighteningly powerful multinational groups. Should we not be discussing this issue? We need a competition policy which can and will introduce controls on the activities of these private-sector monopolies. Certain sectors of European industry, such as the shipbuilding industry, air transport and the steel industry, which have been hard hit by existing competition policy, have suffered tremendously. They have lost their status, and a significant slice of the world market and hundreds of thousands of workers have been made redundant. When will we debate that? The scandalous concentration of power in sectors of strategic importance is giving speculative multinational groups economies the size of entire states, and Member States of the Union at that. And yet, we keep on weakening the public sector and we are ready and willing to tighten competition policy yet further by qualifying public procurement contracts placed with public-sector corporations as state aid. At the same time, unemployment is spiralling as a result of the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Workers are facing a massive attack on their employment and social rights. Consumers see their standard of living being eroded, poverty spreading and the public sector and production base in most countries in the Union being dismantled and dissolved in the name of unadulterated and catastrophic competition, in the name of the absolute market economy and the promotion of the monopolistic interests of big business. We consider the competition policy to be responsible for all this and are totally opposed to it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, Mrs Maij-Weggen, Mr Cashman, ladies and gentlemen, if, today, the window of the European Parliament is opened a little wider, as Mr MacCormick has put it, then Mrs Maij-Weggen and Mr Cashman will have played a great part in it. Thank you for your commitment and congratulations on the success you have achieved in making us more open. I certainly do not see myself as groping in the dark, as Mr Bonde put it, but I do think we are on the road towards the light. Tomorrow's resolution will also be our invitation to the citizens of the European Union to put our openness to good use, to look in on us, to, if you want to put it that way, take a look at the cards we hold, even to see behind the scenes. Openness makes little sense, of course, if nobody is interested in the work we do. We do not wish to complain about the lack of interest on the part of our citizens and voters, but we would like to seriously urge them to avail themselves of this new openness on the part of the European Parliament, as today's technology makes things conceivable which a few years ago would not have been possible. With the click of a mouse, they can see the original texts we discuss in this House. Even if press reports on Europe are sometimes incomplete, the interested citizen can nonetheless look straight in on us with the help of the Internet. That is an opportunity, and because of it we strongly support this report. I would have liked to say something to the representative of the Council of Ministers. Unfortunately, he is not here, but there was not going to be much to say about transparency.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I did not want to interrupt the voting when I arrived a little bit late. Could we request that the bells be rung a little bit earlier? People on the twelfth floor had extreme difficulty getting here for the vote as the lift stopped on every single floor and we could not make it any quicker. The lift was full of Vice-Presidents, Quaestors and all sorts of people coming down from the twelfth floor.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I am pleased that today’s agenda also includes the discharge of the Agency for Safety and Health at Work. This meets our central demand from last year, namely that there should be an individual discharge procedure for all decentralised agencies, thereby at last having equal treatment for the agencies. My committee is of course in favour of discharge for the agency in Bilbao, just as is the Committee on Budgetary Control. We therefore also agree with the verdict of the Court of Auditors, the Commission and the Council. Let me say a few words about this Agency, which was created in 1997. Bilbao has now become the driving force in the field of safety and health at work. I need only mention its outstanding work in implementing the special programme for SMEs in 2001 and 2002. The splendid work it has done was also confirmed by an external evaluation. It was therefore only logical that in our resolution on the Community strategy for health and safety at work for the period 2002-2006 in October last year we called on the Commission to prepare a multiannual programme for small and medium-sized enterprises in the future. It is of course clear that there must in future too be the best possible coordination between the agencies in Bilbao and Dublin. Even though there are no grounds for criticism from our point of view, we welcome the fact that the two agencies have concluded a specific cooperation agreement in order to improve complementarity and banish all danger of overlapping in their work. But we shall remain very vigilant here, especially in the light of enlargement and a possible redefinition of agency policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I must say that the goal of enlarging the European Union is as fundamental as the goal of deepening it. In this respect I agree entirely with the report drawn up by Mr Brok, whom I congratulate. In any case, I want to focus on one of the candidate countries: Bulgaria. In my view, Bulgaria has been approaching the process of joining the European Union very seriously since political stability was achieved with the last elections. I must therefore state that the Bulgarian authorities are making a great effort to continue in the right direction with the enlargement negotiations and the country’s specific adaptations so that it can become a European Union Member State within a timeframe that is both convenient for Bulgaria and possible for the Union. We all want this timeframe to be as short as possible, although, as we say in Spanish, ‘the sun is not hurried by early risers’. Nevertheless, I want to emphasise certain aspects that worry us. First, the social aspect: of course the Bulgarian economy has to adapt, but it must be done by keeping the basic principles of social cohesion, such as the fight for equality and against unemployment, poverty and marginalisation, to promote jobs, benefits and social security. On the matter of the environment, we highlight the need for all units at the Kozloduy nuclear plant to be closed down by the appropriate dates and also for the Bulgarian Government to make a firm commitment to environmental protection. Lastly, we urge the government to remove all legal obstacles that still allow people to be marginalised, because of their sexual orientation, for instance. It is unacceptable that articles like Article 157 should still be in force in the Bulgarian legal code.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I am grateful for your technically rigorous reply to this question, which I have also put to the Commission. But does the Council realise that it has been the rashness and incompetence of the Minister that has led to the loss of more than P 14 000 million, with disastrous economic consequences? Madam President-in-Office of the Council, when it is Ministers themselves who provoke the crisis through their improvisation and inefficiency, is it they who will have to meet the cost? If the Spanish government has known about a toxic shipment since May, why did they keep it under wraps for a month and why did they only raise the alarm after a month? Why has it been communicated to the European Union so late and so badly? Has there been coordination with the European Union? Does the Council realise that, having raised the alarm in the management of this food crisis, this unpopular Peoples’ Party Minister has caused real chaos? Which countries had this been exported to?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I voted in favour of the report on protecting copyright. I am in favour of European regulation of this important sector, but I have to say that, after I had voted, I was assailed by a doubt which, I hope, can be resolved in the future. Before coming into the House I met a young man, Marcello, from Pescara. He told me – you will not believe this, Madam President – that he pins up my declarations of vote on his office wall. I am not making this up, it is true! Obviously he finds them interesting and worth exhibiting. Well, what I want to know is this: does this directive also protect Mr Fatuzzo’s copyright when he presents his explanations of vote? I hope so. If so, I will be even happier that I voted in favour of the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there has been a significant increase in biotechnology applications and they are becoming more and more important both to the economy and to society, because using applications derived from genetically-modified organisms will be instrumental in improving our quality of life. Hence, it is essential that we introduce a modern framework governing the development, marketing and exploitation of genetically-modified organisms. Europe must not be left behind the USA and Japan. This, however, does not mean that we should overlook the safety issues surrounding these innovative applications, such as public health safety and environmental protection. I must point out that we have all witnessed the ongoing war of words recently over the safety of genetically modified organisms. This has led to confusion amongst consumers and has resulted in their being unable to form a sound judgement on the benefits and dangers of biotechnology. We should therefore win consumer confidence and the way to do so is by improving safety standards. For example, we can build up public confidence by banning the creation or use of GMOs containing antibiotic-resistant genes and by providing agencies and the general public with detailed and objective information. Parliament called at first reading for amendments to be incorporated into this directive which cover the above two objectives, i.e. the creation of a useful framework of rules for the deliberate release and trade in GMOs, accompanied by safety measures for the protection of public health and the environment and information for the public and consumers. It is also important for provision to be made for the directive to be adjusted and amended in line with new developments resulting from the fast pace of change in biotechnology and its applications. In closing, I should like to dwell on one point which I stressed in the Committee on the Environment and which deserves our particular attention, and that is the issue of safety. We are awaiting a more general proposal from the Commission on product liability and safety. We must not overreact if we want this directive to promote and support such a promising sector.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum is a new interim agreement. It does not contain anything new and is insufficient as regards its content. The two parties have agreed on the implementation of commitment which had previously been signed but which had not been followed up. It is not peace, and it is premature to cry victory. Nonetheless, this recent agreement has considerable political significance – it marks the end of the deadlock in the peace process after years of stagnation, even sabotage, by the Netanyahu Government which never accepted the terms of the Oslo Accord. This is why it is important for the European Parliament to consider it favourably and to call on the parties involved to implement it in its entirety and in good faith. The motion for resolution is balanced and fair. It is a useful reminder of the statement of the principles of the European Parliament on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am sorry that paragraph 7 of the motion for resolution on the freeze on settlement has not been included in the compromise text. Observation of this condition by Israel is, in fact, essential to establishing confidence. The Palestinian counterpart, however, is found in paragraph 8 in the form of a clear and unambiguous undertaking to fight terrorism. The European contribution to peace in the Middle East is expressed not only by means of economic and financial aid, it is also by adhering firmly to the political principles of a fair and lasting solution that we shall ultimately leave a European imprint on the final settlement.

Political group: PSE