GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
On the one hand, companies play an important role for society as a whole, because they create employment and income and provide people with the products they want. On the other hand, however, owners and managers often take little interest in the consequences their actions have on their employees and the public and the environment in general, and their only concern is to maximise their return on investment. Without government legislation, bad companies would triumph over the good ones in the competitive battle. Those that incur the least costs and are therefore able to sell their products at the lowest prices can survive best, even if this is at the expense of democracy, jobs, the environment and animal welfare. The introduction of binding Community rules at the level of international companies is to be welcomed, not only to protect values other than the economy but also to prevent better companies from being forced to become like the worse ones. The European Commission’s Green Paper wishes to confine itself to voluntary agreements and a comparison of good practice. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs of the European Parliament is right to ask for social and environmental reports to be included in the fourth directive on company legislation, and also for independent control, equal opportunities for women and public access to the ethical criteria used by company pension funds in their investments, registered codes of conduct and trade union freedom.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is striking that the initiatives of the Member States’ governments are often aimed at keeping information secret, at screening off their fellow countrymen from ‘dignitaries’, and at other phenomena that we thought had finally been consigned to the past. Particularly after the attacks in New York on 11 September 2001, the fear of terrorism was so great that all kinds of suggestions were made which had no place in a democracy. Fortunately, the panic has peaked, and such authoritarian initiatives are often rejected by a majority of this Parliament. In this case, the Danish Government is suggesting limiting free access to documents and not giving Parliament the necessary say in respect of Europol’s budget. The opportunities for control by the national parliaments are also not being reinforced. Even the director of Europol is of the opinion that democratic control is inadequate, but the Council does not want to change that. The Council must get out of that habit. The rejection of the Danish initiative in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs was therefore the first step in the right direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, as has already been said, this is about the consummation of a relationship that in fact already exists. This being so, we were not entirely convinced that this was a matter of urgency, as it might have been possible to submit a motion on this subject at a rather earlier date. That is why my colleagues and I have not been able to agree to this being treated as a matter of urgent and topical importance, but the majority have done so, and we will, of course, agree to the terms whereby the agreement is implemented. Like Mrs Schierhuber, I would like to reiterate very briefly that the ecopoint rules as such keeps on being criticised, and I can also see that it cannot be of long-term duration, but what is at issue at present is to what extent these ecopoint rules can or should be extended until 2006, because we are working on the assumption that we will then at last have what is termed the infrastructure costs directive, by which is meant a set of general rules applicable not only to transit traffic, but also to HGV traffic on the roads in general, especially HGVs that are not very environmentally friendly. The fact is that we have to see that the ecopoint rules have helped a great deal to make road traffic more environmentally friendly, quite simply because the fact that HGVs, which are worse in terms of the environment, use up more ecopoints has led many operators and haulage firms to acquire more environmentally-friendly HGVs, these being cheaper in terms of ecopoints and capable of making more journeys. It was also very smart – and, one might say, ultimately consistent with market conditions – to enact a rule that, rather than prohibiting transit, prompted enterprises to acquire environmentally-friendly HGVs; and that, in fact, is what the present debate with the Commission and the Council is all about. We are very grateful to the Commission for giving us a great deal of help in finding a transitional arrangement with which another technological advance can be achieved. Even now, it is a matter of debate whether, if we impose more ecopoints on the HGVs in Euro-category 2 – that is, those that are very bad for the environment – while exempting entirely those in Euro-category 4, companies will promptly change over from Euro-category 2 to Euro-category 4 in order to use HGVs that are environmentally friendly and exempted for the purposes of transport. Contrary to the impression – one that should not be given – that we are extending rules that are fundamentally wrong and unworkable, this arrangement with Croatia is one that will be good for the environment not only in Austria, but also throughout Europe, for these environmental effects make themselves felt not only in the Austrian Alps, but in Europe as a whole, and so I thank the Commission for its support, and we will, tomorrow, as a group, be voting to approve these rules.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Napolitano has written a sound report on one of the most sensitive themes of the forthcoming Convention, namely the relationship between the European Parliament and national parliaments. This topic is sensitive because national parliaments increasingly have the impression that competences are being taken away from them and given to the European Parliament. And if we are being honest, that is true to a certain extent. Since the transfer of a number of tasks of the Member States to the European Union, especially in the last ten to twenty years, and since the introduction of the codecision procedure – in other words since co-legislative powers were granted to Parliament – competences have indeed been transferred. However, this does not mean that national parliaments no longer have any important tasks to fulfil. Paragraph 1 of the resolution is explicit on this score. National parliaments must guide their Ministers in the Council. In addition, they must check up on their Ministers when they leave the Council, they must ensure that the European directives and regulations are implemented correctly, and they must also ensure that European programmes are executed correctly, both in terms of content and in terms of finance. If this is not done properly – as we see it is not in my country in the European Social Fund, inter alia – the European Commission will be claiming back hundreds of millions of guilders. In that case, national parliaments have not carried out their work properly either. In my opinion, the distribution of the competences between national parliaments and the European Parliament should not become the most important point of discussion in the Convention. As Mrs Schleicher has already indicated, particular attention must be paid to the points on which national parliaments have lost competences which have not been passed on to the European Parliament. After all, that is where the democratic loophole is, and this is where we should mainly focus our activities in the Convention. We must check this very carefully, and we must ensure once again that these competences are returned either to national parliaments or to the European Parliament. Indeed, this translates, in my view, into the parliamentarisation and democratisation of the European Union, rather than to a situation in which matters which really belong with the parliaments are left to the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Austria currently enjoys perfectly trouble-free relations with Russia, as demonstrated by the most recent state visits and President Putin’s fondness for skiing in our country. It is for that reason that I find this picture of the European Union’s relations with Russia all the more regrettable. The EU’s relations with Russia are not a one-way street. They need to be optimised if the interests of the enlarged EU are to be given the same weight as Russia’s. It is also an indispensable requirement – let me repeat, an indispensable requirement – that the partnership and cooperation agreement, which has been in force since 1998, should now be extended to cover the European Union’s ten new Member States. What formerly stood in the way of this was the objection that the enlargement of the EU would put Russia at a disadvantage on the market, so that it demanded that compensation be paid. This line of argument really is questionable, as the enlargement of the European Union will automatically create, for Russia too, a market with a great deal of purchasing power, and that cannot fail to be good for its economy. Cooperation in decommissioning nuclear power stations that are ready for scrapping, or in the disposal of nuclear waste off the Kola peninsula and in the North Sea leaves something to be desired, to say the least, and it is far from clear why Russia has so far turned a deaf ear to the demands for safe tankers in the Baltic. What makes it astonishing that the alleged difficulties of the Russian minority in the Baltic states keep being brought up is the fact that both the OSCE and the Council of Europe believe that the problem is no longer there. By way of contrast, the OSCE was barred from entering Chechnya. The fact that most of the asylum seekers and refugees in Austria are Chechens can only be taken as an indication of how appalling the situation there is, although I do not want in any way to downplay the crimes committed by terrorists against the public in Russia. And, even though the EU has been very accommodating with regard to Kaliningrad, there has not to date been any agreement to take back refugees or illegal migrants. With presidential elections now in the offing, I deliberately do not now want to discuss Russia’s internal politics – reference has already been made to ‘managed democracy’ – even though they must inevitably have an effect on relations between Russia and the EU. Even so, it does not make sense to keep quiet about problems when dealing with them cannot fail to help promote good relations between Russia and the EU.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I say that both the committee and the rapporteur have taken a very balanced and level-headed approach to this issue. Unfortunately, virtual reality, while it has a great deal going for it, engenders not virtual but very real crimes which we need to deal with without making bogeymen of ourselves. We must be ready to prevent and punish these crimes as and when they appear. Secure infrastructures and crime prevention need to go hand in glove with respect for freedoms and personal data protection. This is something which we should never forget and which needs to be kept in a state of equilibrium. Obviously we need coordination at international level and obviously the role of the Member States and of the European Union is to operate in international organisations with an appropriate strategy because we cannot resolve the problem alone. The Internet is international and needs to be addressed internationally. Obviously we need better definitions of the various types of crimes. We cannot talk in general terms and what appear to be the most important issues today, i.e. pornography, hackers and racism, will not necessarily be the most important issues tomorrow. Commercial crime is also very important and I think that we need to work with industry and the banks here if we are to be sure that the solutions found are indeed the most suitable. One particular aspect, which colours all the rest, is intellectual property, which is in huge danger and could end up disadvantaging authors and artists. I think that we need working protection rather than excessive measures which will stop the Internet from operating.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, last week, you all received a communication from the Quaestors saying that, as a result of a judicial statement by the French court, drivers’ services will be very limited in Strasbourg this week, and we can only use our own drivers, and not the hired taxis that we always use. When we began our current term of office in 1999, the French government said that it wanted to do everything in its power to make our lives more comfortable here in Strasbourg. Well, first of all, a great many flights from the capitals to Strasbourg have been scrapped. Secondly, it is no longer possible to transport hot water in this Parliament and we are now also being faced with a car shortage. What more could the French government do to make our lives here unbearable? (Applause) I would therefore suggest that only those Members who vote against Strasbourg should still be allowed to use Parliamentary cars.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with the authority conferred on our Group by the fact that we have always opposed any type of embargo, on the grounds that it is the population which suffers, and also because we are always defending international legality as a standard for co-existence and peaceful solutions to conflicts, we demand not only that the fate of these prisoners, taken illegally during the invasion of Kuwait, be clarified, but also that they be returned to their homeland – Kuwait – because this would help in reaching a solution to the other problems. But it is not only this question – so well described by Mr Martínez Martínez – but also the fact that, in Iraq, there is continuous violation of human rights which makes daily life impossible. We therefore think that this proposal should be put in a context of Iraq’s compliance with all the United Nations’ requirements, so that the embargo may be lifted and democracy returned to the people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we agreed with many points in the motion for a resolution, for example with the proposal that the European Parliament should submit a complaint to the Patent Office, but also with the criticism of the structures of the European Patent Office. However, we were very divided when it came to the vote. I, for example, voted for the resolution because, for me, it sent out important signals concerning human dignity. Many in the group – quite rightly, too, I think – abstained from voting because most of the amendments of the Group of the European People’s Party were adopted. I think it was the wish of the Group of the European People’s Party to attempt to transform this motion for a resolution into an advert for the patenting directive. They did not succeed, but they have nonetheless weakened the resolution. However, I am confident that the European Parliament will stop deceiving itself before long, by which I mean deceiving itself that the directive on patenting prohibits the patenting of human genes or parts of the human genetic make-up. That is unfortunately not the case. There is absolutely no point in burying one’s head in the sand and always maintaining the opposite of what is in fact the case, on the principle that the more you insist on something, the closer it comes to becoming a reality. Contrary to what Parliament believes, this patent is no isolated case. For years, the European Parliament has not patented human genes where they originate, in the body. However, the patenting of human genes and parts of the human genetic make-up still goes on. This is an affront to human dignity and also signifies a commercialisation of the human body. I was delighted to see that both the European and the German federations of medical practitioners are so clear-sighted about the fact and have also warned that research might be impeded by the patenting of genes. It is also nonsense and self-deluding to maintain that the directive on patenting would prohibit this. I think this very case has shown that we need to revise the directive on patenting and that, above all, we need a moratorium on the patenting of human genes and parts of the human genetic make-up, for I believe that, with the granting of the present patent, the ethical and social consequences have become more than clear.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, groups of experts have informed us that 25-30% of crime in Europe can now be attributed to cross-border, international crime. That is a dramatic development. On the other hand, our police forces and criminal prosecution authorities are organised at national level. And so we know that if criminals can go about their business without being subject to border controls or paying heed to laws, and have almost unlimited financial, technical and human resources, then the police and judiciary are simply lagging far behind them and we still have a long way to go before we achieve a common area of freedom, security and justice. We must pull out all the stops so as to improve the way in which cross-border police work is organised and make criminal prosecution more efficient than it has been hitherto. We may have come a long way in terms of police work in that we have Europol, analysis and coordination activities, and joint investigative groups, but the judiciary is lagging 20 years behind police cooperation according to the experts. That being the case, the act that has been put forward here, which affords judicial cooperation – also in matters of criminal law – represents progress, a step in the right direction. Whilst it may warrant some criticism, we can undoubtedly note to our satisfaction how crucial it is that requests for mutual assistance in matters of criminal law no longer go through prescribed ministerial channels, rather they are exchanged directly, that people held in custody can be handed over, and that joint investigative groups can be set up. That is a whole host of measures that will help us to proceed efficiently and on a joint basis in matters of criminal law. Ana Palacio has already made critical comments in connection with telecommunications interception and hearings by video conference. All in all though, this report is a positive step towards the common area of justice we are seeking to achieve. . (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Langen on the sound report which he has produced on the issue of shipbuilders. I would like to remind you that the issue we are dealing with today is an old one. It has been a recurrent theme. Specifically, it is now more than two years since we condemned the unfair practices which essentially take place in South East Asia, and which affect our shipbuilding industry. In recent weeks, the Commission has told us that the system of subsidies, thanks to which our industry is subsisting, must be removed as from January as a result of a supposed improvement in competitiveness. On the other hand, after more than two years of ferocious unfair competition on the part of Korea, the Commission has decided, after receiving a formal complaint from all our shipbuilders, to take the case to the World Trade Organisation. As you all know, it will take more than six months to carry out this procedure. Furthermore, if successful, the creation of a group of experts within that organisation will mean that it will take at least two years. In the meantime, it is intended that what remains of our shipbuilding industry will subsist thanks to a package of aid to research and development, which will enter into force in January, as Commissioner Monti pointed out yesterday afternoon. We have held a meeting with him, in which I asked him a series of questions. It can be deduced from the conclusions of the meeting that the aid received by our industry has not resolved the problem of Korea. I pointed out to him that the European shipbuilding industry is unprotected. He then said that after 2 December an investigation would perhaps be opened, and that after that investigation we would have to wait and see what happened, etc. I believe that the honest ones, the Europeans, are being left to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, the pirates, to put it in realistic, if pejorative, terms, have the advantage within this competitive world. It is we who play by the rules and it is we who end up losing. I, for example, am from the Basque Country, and I live close to Bilbao. There, these days, what were once shipyards are now concert halls, maritime museums etc. In these shipyards, 4 000 people once worked, and now just a couple of doormen work in each place, and that is what is happening in the European countries. That is, while we are enduring unemployment, the Koreans are doing good business in their shipyards.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the subjects of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease have disappeared somewhat from the headlines, and with good reason. Thank goodness for that! In my view, their absence from the front pages will do more than anything else to restore consumer confidence. Commissioner Fischler, I should like to appeal to you to accept the amendments in the Sturdy report, because referring the report back to committee after the vote would only cause delays, as far as I can see. I could not explain such delays to the farmers, consumers and voters back home. What are we actually asking for? The first thing is that the goalposts should not be shifted in the middle of the game. The rules were laid down in Berlin. We are calling for the reintroduction of a limit of 90 head of cattle. I believe this is something upon which all of us, from our widely diverse regions, really must continue to insist at the present juncture. As for the plan to reduce the stocking density to 1.8 livestock units per hectare from 1 January 2002, I must tell you in all honesty that I am also at a loss to explain this to the farmers in my region. Another lesson we must learn relates to the repeated references to alternative production methods. I believe that organic farms are a good thing, but they are no panacea, because we are already seeing that there is too little purchasing power and too few markets for their produce. It is my opinion that the amendments could be accepted as they stand – time forbids me to repeat the wording of each one – from my point of view and perhaps from your perspective too. And last but not least, our guiding principle throughout this sector should be the need to produce safe food. Safety cannot be regulated with premiums. Safe products are the key to the restoration of a stable beef and veal market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although I am of course unable to make any statement about the state of affairs at Ford in Genk in the brief speaking time available to me, but I would like to make it perfectly clear that there has been no breach of the European Works Councils Directive. The European Works Council has been notified, and there has been a breach of Belgian law on collective labour agreements. As regards the European Works Councils Directive, I can explain it to anyone, as I was its originator. I was myself chairman of the works council of Ford Europe for six years. I would recommend waiting to see what comes out of the discussions between the trade unions and the European Works Council, as I am sure that Ford Genk will get compensation for what it was promised in the collective labour agreement. There is no wages bargaining in the European Works Council; that is a matter for the parties to the collective labour agreement and not for the European Works Councils.

Political group: PSE