GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my group has given me another two minutes, and so I can deal with a number of the questions put by some of my fellow-Members. For a start, it is unfortunate that not only the Commissioner, but also a number of Members of this House have asserted that the adoption of Mr Nisticò’s proposal would make research impossible or – to put the charge in a diluted form – that we would then be entirely dependent on the United States. Can you confirm, Commissioner, that Sweden is situated in Europe rather than in the USA? Most of the stem cell lines listed in the NIH register come from Sweden. I once took the trouble to consult the people who manufactured them. Let me quote from Professor Lars Hamberger, whose unequivocal response, in an e-mail, to the question as to whether these stem cell lines were available to European researchers was as follows: ‘At present, we have 24 stem cell lines, out of which 20 are relatively well characterised. In the case that European researchers want to get access to these cell lines they can apply to us, and if the respective country laws and regulations permit export we can arrange, and we have already distributed a few cell lines to Europe.’ So these cells are available; I have had similar answers from the other institutes. Mr Nisticò has again drawn my attention to the fact that his proposal actually goes further than the Americans’. This is not just about cells, but about cell lines and a later date, so I ask you to desist from asserting that all research would be made impossible. Let me conclude with a thought that I ask Members of this House to take on board. Many of us have mutually contradictory interpretations of what subsidiarity means. I ask you, though, to imagine for one brief moment that we are dealing with a different type of research, for example, research involving cruelty to animals, specifically primates or anthropoid apes. In that event, I think the arguments would be reversed. What is absolutely vital here is that, day after day, the Commission says ‘no’ to research projects. I agree with Mr Linkohr that we must make more funding available for research, but, for as long as we are unable to fund uncontroversial projects, we have to think even more carefully than the Commission suggests about why we want to support controversial ones. For that reason, I believe that Mr Nisticò’s proposal really is a good compromise. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The EUR 45 million to the IFI is most welcome, and a continuing recognition of the European Union's support for the cross-border communities in Ireland. Any attempt to sully the reputation of the IFI is totally unacceptable and amounts to ill-informed political bandwagoning on the sensitivities of Northern Ireland and are not worthy of this Parliament. For the record, Raytheon, a high-tech software plant to which the amendments are directed, is to be funded by the IDB, the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, not the IFI.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, however we express ourselves privately or as a matter of personal preference – for my part, I always say ‘Macedonia’ – we have to use the official name in Parliamentary documents. I therefore see this as being about the official use of language rather than about voting. (Applause) So we should not be having a vote on it at all. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, given the degree to which the media has had access to an unpublished report commissioned by the EU's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Committee, STOA, entitled 'The Possible Toxic Effects from Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague', could you immediately organise for the publication of this report to ensure a balanced and informed comment by all, especially by us in this Parliament of democratically elected representatives? I am strongly of the view that all reports by committees of this House, whatever their status, should at least be available to Members of this House before they are available to those outside. Please arrange for that report's immediate publication. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the population is concerned about the Spanish Government’s lack of transparency and also about the lack of reliable information from this Commission, which says one thing and then reforms and does another. I am just going to focus on three questions: will the Commission continue the infringement procedure rather than closing the case, as the Spanish authorities hope with its promise to modify just 30 km of the 90 km route planned, arguing that it is a new project? Will the Commission consult the Court of Justice of the European Communities at the next infringement meeting without further delay, if there are no new elements a year after the notification of the reasoned opinion and after four years of investigation of this infringement case? If the regions of Asturias and Castilla y León present it with a new project which respects all natural areas and which conform to Community legislation, would the Commission be prepared to cofinance such a project, in order to prevent the economic losses which the region of Asturias could face by dismantling the existing pylons?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, for the first time I regret seeing you in your seat, as I would have liked what I have to say now to have been addressed to your predecessor. I have, out of conviction, voted in favour of the van den Bos Report, but I will emphatically not endorse Amendment No 16. I am also grateful to the rapporteur for showing magnanimity in helping the President out of a tight spot and finally giving ground, but there was no moving this particular horse. The President’s right to have the last word in certain matters is founded upon him, or the Vice-President in question, enjoying the confidence of this House. I must say at this point, and to my great regret, that the Vice-President who previously occupied the chair no longer enjoys my confidence, as he abused the trust placed in him in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I shall begin by thanking Commissioner Busquin for coming here today. I should also like to express my appreciation for the high quality of the Commission Communication on the future of the textile industry in an enlarged Europe. We are still very concerned, however, and many questions remain unanswered. I shall now highlight some, as raised by Mrs Ferrer. How will the Commission translate proposals into specific actions? What timetable does it envisage and what budget does it intend to use for implementing these measures? Commissioner Lamy’s optimistic words, regarding the textiles and clothing industry, come to mind at this point. He classified it as a sector with a future in the European Union and of major importance for the European agenda for trade. Commissioner Lamy recently said that ‘by 2005 import quotas will have been abolished, but our commitment to the industry will not waver’. We have to address current and future challenges, while resolutely guaranteeing jobs in the sector. It is essential to promote companies’ competitiveness through innovation, flexible production practices and by providing the current workforce in the industry with vocational training and further education. I should like to highlight some of the points in the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Ferrer: - firstly: the vital role of structural funds. I endorse the request to establish, within the financial framework of the structural funds, a specific regional initiative for the sector in order to address the difficulties that will arise in 2005 and to adapt the workers to the new demands of the employment market; - secondly: creating a textiles and clothing monitoring centre. This will make it possible to analyse the development of trade between China and the EU and to ensure compliance with the rules in force in both regions. Assuming that the Commission agrees, when could such a monitoring centre be created? - thirdly: bilateral trade agreements. All of the EU’s bilateral trade agreements must incorporate the principle of corporate social responsibility, compliance with the fundamental rights laid down by the International Labour Organisation and sustainable development.

Political group: PPE-DE
The present increase in haulage in Europe is untenable in the long term. The heavy goods traffic on the roads creates problems in the form of congestion, noise and emissions of environmentally harmful substances. In order to curb this development, goods transported by road ought to be transferred to the railways. However, the system that we have in Europe today with fifteen separate railway systems makes it impossible for railway traffic to compete on the same terms as road traffic. Therefore, the railways in the EU need to be liberalised and the market for the transportation of goods by rail needs to be opened up. The members of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, Pierre Schori, Anneli Hulthén, Jan Andersson, Maj-Britt Theorin, Göran Färm and Ewa would like to stress the following points of view in connection with the consideration of Mr Jarzembowski's and Mr Swoboda's draft recommendations for second reading. One of the most important measures for reducing the competitive disadvantages faced by the railways is to separate those responsible for the infrastructure from the transport firms. Such a separation must be effected as quickly as possible, as it is a prerequisite for different transport firms being able to compete with each other on the same terms as apply within other forms of transport. Fair competition also requires rail fees to be based on the principal of marginal costs. The fees must be based on the traffic-related costs arising during transportation in connection with, for example, noise, effects on the environment, risks of accidents etc. The aim is to create a system of fees that is neutral with regard to competition and does not discriminate against any form of transport. - Wieland report (A5-0174/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, regrettably, when we talk about sustainable development, we find it hard to be specific. The Bali meeting was disappointing and we do indeed have everything to fear for Johannesburg. A summit like this every ten years should enable us to achieve results, whether with regard to energy, water, economic development, or developing countries.We know what our mistakes are and yet we are not making any progress. The enthusiasm present at Kyoto has evaporated amid much disappointment. The rich countries are virtually at a standstill while the developing countries are floundering in their problems, their poverty, their lack of resources. My impression is that we are appeasing our consciences by talking about sustainable development, but that this is yet another hollow promise. We all have a responsibility to future generations, and this responsibility is incumbent upon all the States; it is incumbent upon the Member States of the European Union, which, however, only too often delay the implementation of their decisions indefinitely, for no real reason. Lastly, I also regret the attitude of the United States with regard to international commitments to safeguarding our planet. In the context of the fight against terrorism, the United States is asking for increased international cooperation. We are all in favour of developing this special relationship, and of this cooperation being included in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol too. American industry has declared itself to be in favour of this agreement. It knows that it would be a disadvantage in the long term to remain outside the system. I would like the United States, under the influence of this cooperation, to be able to take an active role in this fight against poverty, resource protection, energy development and climate change, following the example of Europe and, soon, I hope, Russia and Japan. Of course, it is up to the European Union to set ambitious objectives, but these must be attainable so that all the parties involved can find the necessary resources. Local communities should be given the right and the wherewithal to exercise power at their own level, and it would also be beneficial to encourage private initiatives and place more trust in civil society.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have just voted against the Schörling Report. The Group of the , to which I belong, did not manage to secure a majority in favour of its constructive amendments. What has now been adopted has clearly been influenced too much by ideology. Of course this is about environmental safety, but it is also about competitive and innovative jobs in the chemical industry. Over the last few weeks I have been investigating the consequences of the Schörling Report by talking to those whom it will affect. I have visited production plants and had discussions with management, workers and unions. None of those parties is calling into question the aim of the Commission's White Paper, which is to secure the sustainability of the chemical industry. From an ecological point of view, we obviously need the greatest possible protection of the environment and consumers. From an economic point of view, we need uniform basic conditions so as to ensure that there is fair competition for SMEs, users and processors. From a social point of view this is about having a high level of health protection and high standards of industrial safety. At least we were able to prevent the registration requirement for substances with a production volume of one tonne per year from being introduced. As it is, the current classification of substances above 10 tonnes per year and the reporting requirement before they are put on the market is only being managed by the authorities with great difficulty. The Group did succeed in one respect: there was no majority in favour of double testing all chemicals. This does not increase safety and is costly in terms of time and money; incidentally it is completely unnecessary because the authorities already examine these data. I do not consider it acceptable to find substitutes for dangerous substances and methods which should otherwise be banned. You cannot define a substance as 'dangerous' on the basis of its properties, but only on the basis of its uses. Take a knife: it is extremely useful at home and in everyday life, but it becomes dangerous if it is used as a weapon for anything from attacking people to hijacking aircraft. It is also regrettable that it has been agreed that confidential data should be made public: if production volumes, procedures or special compositions, which account for a market advantage, all have to be declared, then we may as well do away with competition right now. This is the lifeblood of our companies. Any competitor can easily imitate ingenious systems. We need to establish once and for all which data are subject to property rights and which are not. Before the second reading in Parliament, I hope that the three committees working on this will put their heads together and come up with a more balanced proposal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, unlike Mr Barón Crespo, I think that the debate on the Fiori report depends on the Caudron report. I shall explain why. We set up a temporary committee to deal with the subject of human genetics. Why did we do this? Because there are considerable ethical problems and I believe that everyone is aware of what they are. In my view, we cannot express a sound opinion on research programmes lasting several years, whose ethical aspects are fundamental, and then suddenly vote on the Fiori report which could lose a significant amount of its political impact. I therefore believe that, in order to make the work of Parliament more coherent, it would be better to take the vote on the Fiori report at the same time as the Caudron report. That said, I also agree that if the physical conditions are not appropriate, it is better to postpone the vote than to proceed under the wrong circumstances. I think that we must respect Members.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Kinnock's report is a huge achievement and is to be welcomed unreservedly. The ACP countries of sub-Saharan Africa are some of the least developed countries. There are depressing educational deficits here and women and children are deprived of even the most rudimentary basic education. There are examples, however, which give cause for hope and it is these which I should like to address. The government of Mali which, as you know, is a bitterly poor country in the Sahel, has imposed an ambitious political programme which courageously tackles decentralisation and comprehensive education reforms. Children in Mali, boys and girls, are to receive a good school education, where possible in their regional or ethnic dialect. That is easier said than done, however, because no teachers have been trained in the regional dialects and there are no corresponding curricula, let alone books. Teachers need to be trained first and books need to be written first; and that is not something which can be done overnight and it is not something which can cover the whole country straight away. You only have to think of the nomadic groups in the desert. They require special schools and special arrangements, to name but one example. This is an enormous challenge in education policy and is being extremely well supported by numerous donor organisations. The radio can help, especially in sparsely populated regions. The numerous local and regional stations which have started up in Mali, as in other developing countries, could easily be used for decentralised education plans, even if the tapes used are produced centrally. Lessons over the radio have always been a way of life in the Australian outback. In Africa, customised electronic methods and mobile schools could go a long way towards rectifying the education deficit. It would be rewarding for the development cooperation of the European Union if we were to be involved in these new methods. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Discussions of European summits are so much hot air, for it is of course at these ritual gatherings – to which representatives elected by universal suffrage are not invited, still less ordinary citizens – that the future of 380 million people is discussed in the greatest secrecy. The Seville Summit, like those of Genoa, Nice and Brussels, is a new and sad illustration of the democratic bankruptcy that characterises the construction of Europe. This summit will be marked politically and ideologically by the liberal right and the extreme right. The latter, buoyed up by its recent electoral successes in France and the Netherlands, has been able to impose its populism and xenophobic demagoguery upon the Fifteen, notably on issues of immigration and the right to asylum. All that will be at stake is strengthening Fortress Europe, whereas it is urgently necessary to combat trafficking, mafias and secrecy through a policy of opening up frontiers, normalising the status of those without papers and giving nationals and foreigners equal civic and social rights. Immigrants and asylum seekers easily serve as scapegoats for societies that have become the victims of economic liberalism and capitalist globalisation. The anti-immigrant hysteria organised by the heads of government ends up by disguising the real agendas of the Seville Summit, the anti-social Barcelona Summit and the neo-colonial Madrid Summit. The joint resolution is part and parcel of this trend.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have news for Mr Helmer, which should encourage him. He should be grateful that we see our Union flag up at all. I am advised that it is the most popular flag to be stolen in this place. (Laughter)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to the rapporteurs for the excellent work they have done, and I support these reports. I give particularly strong support to the reports by Mr van Velzen and Mrs Zorba, which I believe improve on the Commission proposal and take us in the right direction. I attach great importance to what Mr van Velzen had to say about cancer research, on which European assistance for research must continue to focus. We fought hard for that when the Framework Programme was going through Parliament, and so we need to underline it again today. As regards sustainable development, research needs to be used to deal with environmental problems. I have tabled a number of amendments on this, which have met with the committee's support, for example one on research into sustainable biofuels. I disagree with what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said, and believe that biotechnology can play a thoroughly positive role, in which it would also benefit the environment. I would just like to say, with reference to the ethical aspect of research, that I urge the Commission to support Amendments Nos 17 to 20. These were part of the package in the Caudron report, and could give a positive indication that we support those technical solutions that offer alternatives to what has very frequently been a matter of dispute here in Parliament. So this would be a positive and constructive approach. We have refrained from resubmitting the celebrated Nisticò amendment on cloning and stem cell research, about which we have argued so much. The main reason for this is that serious problems with specific parts of this amendment arose in Council. I still do not understand why the Council was not able to come closer to this amendment. Parliament wanted to go further than the Common Position had done. I now hear, though, that a statement by five Member States has moved the Council to start discussing ethics, which cannot but be satisfactory from our point of view, and I call on the Commission to take a constructive approach and smooth the path to an agreement in Council. Parliament will certainly not raise any objections if something is introduced in the ethics field approximating more closely to our amendment than the Commission's declaration and the Common Position did.

Political group: PPE-DE
I voted against the de Roo report. I am, of course, in favour of a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading, in order to make it easier for our economies to adapt to the constraints imposed by the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol. I feel, however, that Parliament wants to introduce an overly bureaucratic system and pointless obstacles. This is all the more regrettable because the Kyoto protocol has not yet entered into force and, as a result of this, the United States, Russia and China will gain a competitive advantage over their European competitors.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the same applies to me as a major international publisher and broadcasting company. I shall be abstaining.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should also like to make a point of order and move that the Bureau consider calling the important debate on the four related reports on competition policy – which was originally scheduled for Wednesday morning, was then postponed to the afternoon and is now to be postponed to late evening – for the Tuesday of the January session if need be. I would ask the Bureau to examine this motion so that we can duly complete the other items by midnight. This is a motion which the President can examine.

Political group: PPE-DE