GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to echo what other speakers have already said, that Europe is indeed experiencing a historic moment. For the first time in the history of our continent, twenty-five countries and nationalities are sitting together round the table and are beginning to work together. I would like to thank all those, in the Commission, in the Council and here in Parliament, who have contributed to this success. This enlargement does not, however, signify the end of the enlargement process in Europe. I understand how important it is for the nations of Central and Eastern Europe to have a clear vision, how important it is to have foresight and how important it is to have a plan that these countries and nations can follow. It is for this reason that I welcome the year 2007 regarding Romania and Bulgaria, which is a realistic date for these countries. I also welcome what we have heard about Croatia, which in the course of recent months and years has made substantial progress in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, especially the criteria that we have discussed here, such as human and civil rights, political democracy and a functioning market economy. It is very important these nations and countries have programmes for the future that they are able to follow and that will contribute to the further success of the unified European continent. We should not, however, forget other Balkan countries during this process, namely Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Whilst it may take these nations and countries longer than the Romanians, Bulgarians and Croats, I think the doors to the European Union should be open for them. In conclusion, I should like to give an answer, if I may, to my fellow Member regarding the conduct of new Members in the process of establishing the Common Security and Defence Policy. I am convinced that these countries will conduct themselves responsibly and that they will contribute to implementing policies that will enable Europe to play its role in the world.

Political group: PSE
The purpose of this proposal is to establish a basic act for operating grants to be awarded to the European Women’s Lobby and to other organisations active at European level in the field of equality. This act is necessary to ensure compliance with the current Financial Regulation applicable to the EU’s general budget. The following will thus receive support: Part 1 – the European Women’s Lobby; Part 2 – the ongoing activities of an organisation pursuing an objective of general European interest in the field of gender equality or an objective forming part of EU policy in this area; Part 3 – any specific actions. The Council accepted various proposals by Parliament, but rejected the proposal to extend the deadline for the 2004-2005 programme until 2008 and to increase the budget from EUR 2.222 million to EUR 5.5 million. The budget for 2004-2005 remained at EUR 2.2 million and the request to specify more clearly the activities of the lobby to be supported, replacing ‘etc’ with ‘gender mainstreaming in the areas of education, sport, health and social security’ and ‘cooperation with women’s associations from third countries’ was not granted. This is something that we regret. The rapporteur proposes that the common position be approved, with just one additional article on the ‘transitional clauses’, already agreed with the Council.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is a directive which combats noise, and I was very happy to vote for it because I am against noise. However, I am against all kinds of noise, Mr President, including the din made by those who act against the interests of pensioners and the elderly. The news has reached my ears this very day of an extremely serious incident in Milan, where a journalist from the television network Telelombardia, who was going to a home for pensioners and elderly people, the Pio Albergo Trivulzio in Milan, to report on the living conditions of elderly people in nursing homes – in this case, a nursing home in Milan – was treated badly: he was prevented from filming, and the commotion has reached my ears and I want to condemn it in this Chamber today. Indeed, I believe that pensioners and elderly people have a right for others to know how they live, which must be in peace and calm, not in dubious conditions like, I suspect, those of that old people’s home in Milan.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the oral amendment I proposed to Amendment No 43 by Mr Lund is to replace his second paragraph. This is one that I have reached a compromise on with Mrs Korhola. It states the following: 'In the case of shortage of certain plasma products, and solely with regards to the importation into the EU from countries outside of the EU, the Member States may permit exemptions to the directive provided the quality and safety requirements laid down are met.' This is absolutely essential to safeguard the interests of European haemophiliacs who rely, occasionally, on imported Factor VIII plasma products which may contain some donated and some sold blood from the United States. So this is absolutely essential, if we are not to put in jeopardy the lives of British and other haemophiliacs. It has the support of myself and Mrs Korhola. I understand Mr Lund will support it as well. - Following the vote on Amendments Nos 55 and 56. President. – As we are familiar with the procedure when oral amendments are tabled, I have to ask the House whether there are any objections. Twelve Members or more can object to voting on this oral amendment. I would ask if the amendment can be accepted. I see more than twelve Members. This oral amendment is therefore not put to the vote. I suggest we address this in a practical manner and vote on Amendment No 43 in a moment. We will now vote en bloc on all 60 committee amendments, except for Amendment No 43.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is with great regret that the CDU/CSU group acknowledges the decision to grant Turkey candidate status. We consider this Council decision to be a fatal error because it will permanently encumber rather than foster relations with this important and reliable ally. Even the Council knows that the criteria for integration have not been met and will not be met in the foreseeable future because Turkey is not even prepared to amend fundamental clauses in its constitution, such as the influence of the military. The expectations raised in Helsinki are therefore bound to end in disappointment. This is why we want relations with this important partner to be based on a partnership within as close an economic framework as possible, i.e. by meeting the obligations of customs union, rather than on illusionary prospects of membership. Relations with Turkey are too important to be founded on the hypocritical act of Helsinki! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, quite a few problems affecting Lebanon have been mentioned in this Chamber, in spite of there also being many positive signs in that country. We in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party wish to highlight a number of these problems. The situation in Lebanon is very uncertain and complicated, and the Syrian presence in the country means that the question may sometimes arise as to whether Lebanon is a completely independent state. There are extensive infringements of human rights. I only have to mention the 17 000 missing Lebanese, the restricted freedom of expression, the violence against demonstrating students, the death penalty and, of course, the situation concerning the Palestinian refugees, referred to by quite a few fellow MEPs. These refugees too must come to enjoy the positive advantages that the association agreement can provide. The Group has tabled a number of amendments concerning, for example, the 200 Lebanese held prisoner in Syria. There are also a dozen in Israel. The situation concerning these refugees must be clarified. Lebanon must also ratify the Geneva Convention. We are very concerned about the situation of the refugees. Trade and the exchange of goods are nonetheless to be welcomed. In the long term, they promote democracy and development – political, economic and social. The association agreements are also an important part of the Barcelona Process. We are therefore voting in favour of this association agreement in the hope that it will lead to development in Lebanon. We nonetheless feel a certain hesitation in doing so because Lebanon is far from being a democracy, and there are flagrant breaches of human rights. We also feel a certain unease, or frustration rather, at the fact that there is always talk about human rights clauses that can be applied if a country infringes an association agreement with the EU. These clauses are nothing other than a resounding shot in the dark. I really want to appeal to Commissioner Patten to ensure that mechanisms can be developed whereby, in the event of breaches of human rights that we know are being committed, Article 2 of the association agreement can be invoked and applied in a meaningful way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the bombings at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar in Mumbai on 25 August 2003 killed and injured scores of innocent civilians. These devastating and cowardly terrorist attacks remind us all that the scourge of terrorism is a threat faced by all democracies. It is a challenge that we must face together by intensifying security cooperation on a bilateral and multilateral basis. The United Kingdom in particular has strong historical ties with India. I trust that the British Government will offer India all the support that it can in combating terrorism. The Indian authorities and people have shown commendable restraint in the face of these latest outrages. That, of course, is the right response. The terrorists seek to stir wider hatred and animosity and undermine not only the secular democracy, which has been part of our legacy to India and India's great strength and example, but also the hopeful signs of rapprochement, which have been seen recently between India and Pakistan. Pakistan should now clearly demonstrate its willingness to take effective action against terrorists on its borders with Afghanistan and now, even more urgently, on its borders with India – in cooperation with the Indian security authorities – before there is another conflagration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as you will be aware, last Monday my office received an incendiary bomb which was addressed to me but opened by my staff. Could I take the opportunity to thank colleagues for their solidarity and support. It was obviously a shocking incident, although we have to put it in perspective: a lot worse has happened to other Members of this House. What was particularly frightening was that it was my staff who opened this correspondence and that could have included, for example, students on temporary work experience; that was the most cowardly aspect of it. While we have to take security precautions, I hope that we would not allow barriers to be created between us and the electorate, because that is exactly what the perpetrators want: to undermine democratic society. We have seen plenty of examples of that in the past. Perhaps the most shocking aspect was a decision by Mr Farage of the UK Independence Party to put out an opportunist press release that was at best in the worst possible taste and at worst an apology for terrorism. Since that press release, my office staff have had injury added to insult by receiving a lot of emails from supporters of the UK Independence Party, or its members, which have been frankly offensive and inflammatory in the extreme, including one suggestion that it should have been a bigger bomb. This has reinforced my view of the UK Independence Party as a group of paranoid reactionaries on the fringes of society who are now clearly prepared to throw their lot in with those who advocate the violent overthrow of governments. There have been apologists for terrorists in this House before, particularly Herri Batasuna. I am disappointed and ashamed that a British political party should have taken the same stance and I hope you condemn that, Mr President. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my voters do not want their tax money to be used to kill unborn human beings, even if, unlike in Germany, it is permitted for research purposes in many Member States. For this reason I came out quite clearly against this report as it now stands and have from the outset supported the clear line taken by Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and by Mr Gargani. We were, however, prepared to go a long way in a compromise motion in order to prevent something worse. I would like to thank Mr Nisticò and Mr Liese for giving this House the opportunity for a compromise that is so far-reaching but which sets limits. Unfortunately, this was turned down by a tiny liberal left majority of this House and I must make it perfectly clear that that is probably the end of compromises in this matter. This House is divided on this important issue and I imagine there is the same division in the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that we should use our in any case meagre research funding to finance such highly controversial research on so divisive an issue; we ought to concentrate on things that are not controversial in the EU and leave this question, to which the principle of subsidiarity should apply, to the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wish to raise a point of order. I wish, in actual fact, to complain about the way in which we deal with the legislative procedure in the European Parliament. I tabled four amendments, which were voted down in the committee. That is perfectly acceptable, and I also have a reservation; but the deadline for amendments for this sitting expired this evening at 7 p.m. Quite a few of my fellow MEPs who might have contemplated endorsing these amendments have not arrived here in time because of the problems we always have when we are to make our way to Strasbourg. I think that the deadline might perfectly well have been extended to tomorrow evening or tomorrow afternoon so that there would have been an opportunity to deal with this matter. I find this unacceptable, and I hope that you can see to it that matters are better organised in future.

Political group: ELDR
Mr Clegg said in his speech that this was a controversial and complicated piece of work and I think therefore we chose well to appoint him as a rapporteur. He has been very unflappable throughout and, on behalf of the House, I would like to record that at the time he was successfully decoupling the local loop, he was also making a very successful coupling of his own, by getting married. I am sure that we all pass on our congratulations to him. It will not surprise this House to know that, as a representative of the British Conservative Party – and it was the Conservative Government that privatised British Telecom over 17 years ago, probably the first of the large-scale telecom privatisations in Europe – I very much welcome this essential further action to deregulate and open up the market. In pushing this forward it has been very important for the Commission to lay the foundations with the telecoms package that we are now considering and we very much admire their ambition and their zeal to do this. My only comment, when looking at the slightly loose wording on some of the timing – for example, that notified operators shall from 31 December meet reasonable requests from beneficiaries – is to ask the Commissioner to assure us that he will be very severe in monitoring this, because there is no point in pushing this text through here if we have very slack and loose implementation in the Member States where this also needs to be pushed through. Can I also say this that this has been an admirable initiative resulting from the Lisbon summit but a lot of other key aspects concerning moving forward in the new economy were mentioned in Lisbon? Who is going to use all this new low-cost deregulated capacity? We want to see the new entrepreneurs, the new Internet companies coming into the market. I remind the Commissioner that one of the other key aspects of Lisbon was the creation of new conditions in the European economy, to get the new investors. Can I encourage him with the new spirit of adventure that we see here – and perhaps that is not a word that we always associate with the Commission – to move forward with zeal and vigour to achieve these other aspects of Lisbon with the same effectiveness.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it is clear that the proposal concerning the Afghan refugees is a topic that must and can be open for discussion. This is also provided for in the agenda. Given the new measures enacted in the United Kingdom in connection with the current spread of foot-and-mouth disease, we consider it vital that this matter be discussed. Since these topics are not mutually exclusive, we would ask Parliament to cover this topic too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Parish report provides a rigorous analysis of an essential issue for the European Community and for those who wish to join the Union. Young farmers do indeed need urgent attention. First, because we must support our young people in all areas of activity, and secondly because it is in our interests to keep the rural population, most of whom are connected with agricultural activities, in the countryside. In approaching this issue, we have to appraise elements that lie at the roots of our social structure, our territorial organisation, our economy, our culture and our civilisation itself. Many of the problems that affect these farmers are substantially concerned with one of the bases of the dominant economic model in Europe; private land ownership and the forms of land transfer. This report contains an appeal for institutional action benefiting a specific group and also for the implementation of concrete measures to give rural land ownership a meaningful social function. In this context, the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport seems to me highly appropriate when it states that young farmers are not a very homogeneous group. A distinction must be drawn between students at agricultural schools and colleges, young people who wish to set up in rural areas as an alternative to the urban environment, and the children of farmers. Even within this last group I would distinguish between those who are the children of farmers who work on the land and those who are descendants of farmers who, from the size of their holdings, are really agricultural businessmen. While accepting that measures should be taken to reduce charges on inheriting property, I would highlight other actions also mentioned in the Parish report to help make holdings viable, which are based on socio-economic formulas. I should like to stress another aspect of the report: we must try to ensure that when our future co-Members of the Union incorporate the acquis communautaire they do not bring in hidden habits that hinder the development of the rural environment in their countries. The change from collectivised farming economies to situations that can be merged with the Community situation may trigger off speculative processes that will artificially raise market prices for land and thus increase young farmers’ difficulties in setting up or keeping themselves in the countryside. This report, Mr President, will certainly be important in so far as we can also disseminate it in our own countries, in the candidate countries, and in particular in the sector it specifically addresses.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank Commissioner Kinnock for his very clear reply to the oral question. My point directly follows on from Mrs Eriksson's. It is clear that, in many Member States, homosexual couples do not have any rights and there are grave injustices within Member States. The only light at the end of the tunnel as regards my own country, Ireland, is that our Law Reform Commission announced yesterday – and I suspect it is because they saw something coming down the line from the Commissioner – that they were going to make that part of their research programme for the next year. Hopefully that will result in the justice that is clearly the right of stable couples, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. We have had situations where, because of the lack of rights for homosexual couples, people have been evicted from local authority housing on the death of the other partner who was the named tenant. We also see that huge death duties accrue to partners who have bought houses together where, on the death of one partner, the other is faced with a massive tax bill, very often resulting in that person having to sell what was, in the truest sense of the word, a family home. I know you will be addressing some of the anomalies that exist in this but, as Mrs Eriksson has rightly said, they exist in a significant number of Member States and it could cause serious problems in terms of discrimination when we come to implement charges. I wish you every success and I am extremely glad that we have had an opportunity to raise the issue within this House because there is widespread support for it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to begin by thanking the Commissioner for his outstanding work. Of course, I would also like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Caudron, for his two excellent reports. I would like to express my appreciation of the positive and constructive cooperation within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as well. I too found this a very enjoyable experience, thanks, not least, to the sterling work carried out by our shadow rapporteur. I would like to raise two issues. Firstly, genetic research: genetic and biotechnology offer great opportunities in medicine and the environment, and it is certainly right to give massive support to these areas at European level. However, as soon as human embryos become the subject of research, I believe that for ethical reasons, clear limits must be set. Some Member States, including Germany, have banned the use of human embryos for research purposes, and this naturally includes associated activities such as the cloning of human life. I think that our consideration and respect for other Member States make it incumbent on us to exclude activities which obviously raise serious issues of ethical responsibility from joint European research funding, and I therefore urge this House to vote for Mr Posselt's Amendment No 334 or Mr Liese's Amendment No 332. The second issue which I would like to address briefly is fusion research. I wish to voice my clear support for the funding of fusion research. I believe that nuclear fusion can be developed as a future-proof technology. It produces virtually no carbon dioxide emissions which impact on climate. It also produces very little in the way of radioactive waste, and in particular, in contrast to nuclear fission, has no significant harmful effects over the long term. In this respect, we Europeans should take the opportunity afforded in this area, in which we have a unique status worldwide – to continue appropriate research. We should not cut the budget but leave it, at least, at the level originally proposed. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE