GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the official European Union delegation to Seattle defended the principle of a broad agenda. It received a mandate to include an extensive range of new areas in the Millennium Round, but in fact it intended to grant the WTO an increased range of responsibilities and powers. As far as we are concerned, it is not a matter of organising the continued extension of free trade better, but of prioritising the defence of social and environmental rights and of enabling all peoples to be self-determining and to decide their own future. The delegation would also have us believe that they fought for the countries of the south. But they did nothing of the sort. As regards agriculture, the European Union defended only European agro-industry exporters against their North American competitors and the exporters of the Cairns Group. They did not stand up for the demands of European family-run or group-operated farms or the demands of the farmers of the south. The demonstrators from all over the world who hindered the Seattle conference represent the first counterattack by the world against the dictatorship of markets and financial profits. They represent a hope for millions of workers, unemployed people and landless agricultural workers, and for all the victims of this capitalist world order that the WTO wishes to force on us. The interests of the peoples of the world are antithetical to the development of liberalism.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen: I would like to make use of the short time available to me to comment on Article 3 of the Directive on fruit juices. Today, we are increasingly advocating information and clarification for consumers. Responsible, adult consumers, getting information from product labels, are meant to decide for themselves what they buy. Strict, clear, unambiguous regulations, the thinking behind which is clear to all, must be enacted. Descriptions such as ‘juice’, ‘fruit juice’, ‘nectar’, ‘fruit juice from concentrate’ or even ‘contains fruit’ make it difficult for consumers to assess a product's true quality or know how it was produced. It was in 1975 that the Fruit Juice Directive first introduced consumers to the designation ‘fruit juice’ or reinforced it, and consumers have got used to it. ‘Fruit juice’ and ‘fruit juice from concentrate’ are in the final analysis one and the same product. The designation ‘fruit juice from concentrate’ refers only to the manufacturing process and not to the ingredients, which must of course be the same. The additional designation ‘with concentrates’ tends in my view to confuse. Product designations must be clearly defined, simple and comprehensible. We must prevent additional descriptions which are not absolutely necessary, as confusion is no protection for consumers. In my view, the proposed Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 25 make the current legal position stricter in an unjustifiable way, particularly for the juice industry, and I believe they should be rejected. Fruit to be sold fresh in markets, in other words for consumption, may be treated with fungicides. Why, then, not fruit for juice production? In exactly the same way, the criteria of the EU Drinking Water Directive must suffice for the water which has to be used in the preparation of fruit juice. I would ask you therefore, ladies and gentlemen, to vote objectively and purposefully to set a directive on course which will help the consumer and which manufacturers will be able to implement.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, poor Mr Vitorino has one of the most difficult jobs in the Commission and he does it extremely well. I come from a country that, tragically, has a history of mass emigration over hundreds of years. In view of our history, I am perhaps a little more liberal in my thinking about these particular issues. My colleagues from Spain and Portugal have also referred to this. I agree with my group that the main competence needs to remain with the individual Member States, not because I want to suggest that we keep immigrants out of the country, but so that we can begin seriously to address the chaotic situation that exists in many of our countries regarding the processing and acceptance of immigrants. It is a serious problem in a small country such as my own. Many of those arriving in certain Member States - and indeed in my own - are being treated extremely badly, particularly by employers who are not themselves subject to the kind of controls that are applied to apparently legal immigrants into the country. These immigrants are under-paid; they are often housed in disgraceful conditions. In many cases, it is as if animals rather than human beings were being brought into the country. We have to accept that Member States know their own situation best. We also have a situation where, with the rise of unemployment, many of those who have been brought to Ireland as legal workers are being let go simply because it is no longer convenient for employers to have them. While I agree with many of the points made by the Commissioner, we have to be realistic about these matters. The issue is not about keeping people out, but making sure that, having come in, they are treated with the dignity they deserve.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Hermange on an excellent report. I would also like to congratulate her for making it available in braille and through sign language interpreters. This is such a good report because of the cross-party cooperation, similar to the cross-party cooperation there was on the article concerning anti-discrimination, and because of the input from the disabled people's organisations themselves. We had 97 amendments in committee, and we have only five for this plenary session. That demonstrates how we have all worked together and particularly that Mrs Hermange has listened to the points that have been put to her and incorporated them into this report. I hope also that this report will act as a springboard for the year 2003, the Year of Disabled Citizens, but hopefully we can bring forward the disability directive that Mr Howitt has just referred to within that year, so as to actually make a commitment to a positive disability directive. This report is about breaking down barriers for disabled people, to get rid of the prejudices that disabled people face in their daily lives across the European Union. That is what we are aiming to achieve. It is disgraceful that we need this report, that disabled people are not treated like other people. We must make sure that disabled people are mainstreamed, that they are not sidelined, that they are taken into account in all sectors – in the information society, in public procurement, in employment. As Mr Mantovani said, the level of unemployment is three times higher for disabled people. Let us hope that this report, together with the employment directive, will address that issue. We must look at all the issues. I would like to conclude by saying again to Mrs Hermange that she has produced an excellent report but one that we must make sure that we put into practice. Fine words are one thing, making sure that in practice disabled people are treated exactly the same as everyone else is another.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I do not speak for my Group on this matter, but I want to congratulate Mrs Ghilardotti for her hard work in making this directive a reality. We hope this directive will develop into a new partnership between workers and management and strengthen dialogue. That, in turn, will improve flexibility and productivity. We have a directive which is essentially a two-way street. It must make sense for workers in retail, service and manufacturing industries not to learn about their future through the media, but to work within a positive consultation mechanism making them aware of what will happen to them and their families. The question is whether existing laws work well. There is plenty of evidence that they do not. Workers in my own country at Rover/BMW, Marks [amp] Spencers, in Longbridge, at Corus and Vauxhall – the list is endless – would all benefit from this directive. The directive is essentially about the future of work, not the past. When closure is inevitable for companies with more than 50 workers, we want to see information and consultation, so that workers are informed, leading to a better level of trust within companies. We need realistic thresholds to allow the directive to work well. In discussions with trade unions and business, it is clear that companies need to be made aware of their responsibilities. The responsibilities work both ways. Colleagues, information and consultation has been a very difficult directive. There have been a number of compromise amendments. We are very happy with the way in which those discussions have progressed. It is clear that some Member States will continue to have problems with certain aspects of this directive. We must work together to ensure that in conciliation we reach the stage where information and consultation are embraced by both sides of business and industry. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to confine my remarks to the subject of HIV/AIDS. The World Population Report for 2002, which has just appeared, contains some shocking figures. On average, 14 000 men, women and children die of this scourge every day. It is now the commonest cause of death in Sub-Saharan Africa. To date, more than 60 million people worldwide have become infected and around 22 million of them have died. Of the 40 million persons infected, 95% live in developing countries and nearly three quarters of them in Africa. Out of 580 000 children below the age of 15 who have died from AIDS, 500 000 – almost 90% – lived in Africa. I could continue with these statistics of misery indefinitely. This catalogue of disasters is not only the sum of millions of human tragedies, however, but it is something that affects whole societies. Life expectancy is falling, education is severely affected, agricultural output is declining, and the social and economic fabric is being eroded. Plans for fighting HIV/AIDS must not be confined to the health aspects. What is needed is an integral strategy with wide-ranging education and prevention campaigns. Those who are already infected are entitled to the best possible treatment. We carry some responsibility for that. It is also up to us to provide the necessary knowledge, awareness and, of course, the necessary resources for prevention and treatment. Because once a person is infected, that cannot be reversed. In Sierra Leone I saw large posters on streets and squares with the blunt message: Aids kills! malaria and tuberculosis can be cured, AIDS cannot. AIDS can be avoided, however, and that is worth every effort. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have not discussed it in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, but my personal view is that we should not accept urgency now.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission’s proposals for supplementary and amending budgets 1, 2 and 3 have been dealt with in Parliament unusually quickly and very flexibly. It shows that Parliament and its Committee on Budgets show real responsibility for the European Union economy and, in addition, real responsibility for the development of different policies and adjusting promptly to prevailing circumstances. Budgets 1 and 3 are mainly technical; they concern a surplus and certain computer-related purchases. The most interesting additional budget is number 4 which channels significant sums in respect of reconstruction and humanitarian aid to the Balkans – Kosovo and Macedonia – and aid to Turkey. Putting this fund together was a significant challenge to EU credibility and the fact that they were dealt with by the Committee on Budgets leading to amendments being made shows just how great that responsibility is. I would particularly like to stress that when reconstruction in Kosovo gets under way, the procedure must be simple and clear, with regard also to the administration of funds and the share of responsibility. For this reason, the agency responsible for reconstruction should not be split up into two separate areas, but must be in one place, and it should be independent with sufficient authority to take decisions. Otherwise, the management of funds will be time-consuming and will lead to a situation in which the impact of aid is weakened. For this reason, when tomorrow we debate and decide on this issue, the Agency for Reconstruction should be set up in Pristina, and it should on no account be associated with the agency that monitors the Stability Pact at Thessaloniki. On other matters I would say that the questions raised by Mr Fabra Vallés on arrangements regarding appointments can surely be dealt with at the next debate on the budget.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like to draw your attention to something that has happened since our last part-session. The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, made a speech about the future of European unification at the beginning of May. Although some of the passages in this speech may have been contentious, it was important in as much as it provided food for thought as to how unification is to be accomplished with 25 or 30 Member States. The reaction of Mr Chevènement, the French Minister for the Interior, was all the more astounding. What he said in essence was that anyone advocating a European federation or European constitution must have failed to process our experiences under National Socialism properly. I consider this to be a faux pas of the kind that should meet with protest on the part of the European Parliament. Mr Chevènement endeavoured to qualify his statement, but what he did in essence was to repeat it, thereby reiterating the thrust of his argument. We parliamentarians have repeatedly pronounced ourselves in favour of a European constitution and a federal Europe – from Spinelli to Herman through to the most recent reports. I therefore feel that Mr Chevènement’s statement is an insult to Parliament’s work. I call upon you to duly register the European Parliament’s protest. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think we can make things easier for ourselves. My group opposes the oral amendments. I am sorry, but having discussed these reports in detail in the committee and voted on them as a package, it is simply out of the question to untie that package by making changes at this stage. That is why my group opposes all oral amendments to the Ainardi report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in February 1787, a previous convention met in Philadelphia. Several of the American States were opposed to calling the thing in the first place and several others were determined to restrict its mandate and to dilute its effect. The convention's formal brief was extremely restrictive and it was not itself to decide but only propose. Yet from that experiment flowered the American Constitution and the post-colonial parliamentary democracy that we still recognise today. Such a similar result will only come out of this European Convention, if we as a Parliament are bold, well-organised and persuasive. Beneath the Presidency of our European George Washington, we must draft a clear set of proposals and, while accepting the questions set for us by Laeken, we must retain the capacity to ask ourselves some questions. Let us be truly creative for Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it seems that there is some confusion. Mr Mann, of the Group of the European People’s Party and I tabled compromise Amendment No 79, which was to be voted on in three parts. The first part was adopted, but I do not think that we have yet adopted the second part, since you proceeded to the vote on Amendment No 22 by the committee which should, in principle, be contained in the amended Amendment No 79. And then we have the third part of compromise amendment No 79: Article 1(2). I was going to propose, on behalf of Mr Lehne, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and on my own behalf, this oral amendment, which Mrs Echerer also supports. I think that we must then vote in favour of Article 1(2)(b)c and lastly, on Article 1(2)(b)d. I am sorry that this is complicated, but life sometimes is complicated. I think that now is the perfect time to take the oral amendment. First of all, the directive never intended to compromise the freedom of the press, whatever anyone claims, and the provisions which are retained guarantee the freedom of the press and the freedom to criticise anything that goes on in the financial markets. Nonetheless, if a journalist falls victims to misleading information, it is not the journalist who must be held responsible; it is the person who manipulated the market. And to make it clear that journalists can only be held responsible if they themselves were involved in the manipulation, in other words, if they personally benefited from it, I propose, on behalf of Mr Lehne and with the backing of Mrs Echerer, that, at the end of this Article, we add the following text: 'Whereas the person having disseminated such information or can without reasonable doubt be considered to have known that information was false or misleading'. I ask you to vote in favour of this amendment.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, for the reply you have given me. It is clear that the Council is currently considering this issue, which is of concern to all European citizens. In this case, as an MEP, I have asked you a question which corresponds to the worries of my electors. I come from a country, Spain, which depends very much on air transport and, in recent years, in Spanish airports, particularly Barajas and Barcelona, delays have been extreme. Is there any possibility of some kind of accelerated aid from the Council to the current Spanish government and the airport authorities to eliminate this horrendous inconvenience to our citizens resulting from the poor functioning of the Spanish air traffic control service?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I should like to start by congratulating the two rapporteurs, Mr Jarzembowski, who has taken over from Mr Pavlos Sarlis, our former fellow Member of the European Parliament who acted as rapporteur for the first reading, and Mr Swoboda, for their reports. Allow me to say that they both explained the technical aspects of their reports extremely well. As Chairman of the Committee on Transport, I should like to highlight two conclusions which I think we need to draw from this debate. The first conclusion concerns the liberalisation of the railways. This is something we have been hearing about for years, just as we have heard a great deal about the single market in the European Union for years. The time has come for action rather than words, on both counts. We need to accept that there will be no complete single market unless transport is fully liberalised and I think that liberalising the railways will be a decisive step in this direction and will make a decisive contribution towards the revival of the declining means of transport which we call the railways. The second message concerns the Council. The Council needs to take serious account of Parliament's views. Of course, we reached a compromise in Helsinki with Mrs de Palacio's help. This compromise is welcome but it is not enough; we need to go further and account needs to be taken of Parliament's position if we are to do so. The Council is wrong to believe that the discussion ended in Helsinki last December with the compromise at Council level. Parliament is here, it has its views, it supports them clearly and will, we believe, support them during tomorrow's vote which, I think, will confirm what was decided at the committee meeting during which the reports were adopted by a large majority.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Union played a leading role at the Johannesburg Summit. The ongoing credibility of this leadership depends, however, on the rigour and the speed with which the Johannesburg commitments are met, in terms of eradicating extreme poverty, of promoting access to drinking water and sanitation, of changing standards of consumption and production, of reversing the loss of biodiversity and of funding development. If, however, we wish to be credible partners in the eyes of the developing countries and if we wish to narrow the shocking divide between living conditions in the two hemispheres, we must also take action on training and education, on debt relief and funding for the poorest countries, on eradicating trade barriers and on gradually eliminating our subsidies to agriculture, fisheries and energy. In this regard, the European Union can get a head start, setting an example by reforming the common agricultural policy, but must not fail to exert pressure on the United States to do the same with regard to its own farming subsidies. - Joint resolution on the protection of audio-visual performers

Political group: PPE-DE
There is no point in beating about the bush; I refuse to subscribe to the ultra-liberal vision set before us in the Jarzembowski report. He goes far beyond what is proposed in the common position presented by the Council. He advocates radical liberalisation of the Community's railways and refuses to grant any derogations, despite the fact that they are essential if we are to adapt gradually to new regulations. He proposes a transitional period of 5 years for the liberalisation of international freight services, adding that the Member States must have liberalised the entire national and international network for freight 5 years after the entry into force of the directive. And to crown it all, by 2010, he hopes that the entire network will have been liberalised for both freight and passenger services! At no point does Mr Jarzembowski worry about public service obligations, which continue to be of prime importance in this sector. At no point does he refer to the risks which radical liberalisation might have in terms of safety. That is why I have not voted in favour of any of his proposed amendments.

Political group: PSE
This resolution does not greatly further the positions that Parliament has been upholding in respect of so-called ‘European governance’, a euphemism used by federalists of all colours for the move towards the creation of a future European government – ‘obviously’ the European Commission – with ‘European’ social partners, aimed at a so-called ‘European public opinion’. Thus, in the external field, it points towards EU representation in international organisations through the proposed Foreign Minister at the head of a common European diplomatic service. Also significant is the consideration that ‘the recent failure of the WTO Conference in Cancún demonstrates the need to reform the rules, procedures and decision-making mechanisms of the WTO.’ In other words, faced with another setback for the neo-liberal capitalist agenda, its representatives are trying to find procedures that will bypass the position adopted by certain countries to defend their national interests against the major capitalist powers, specifically the EU. Nonetheless, I welcome the demand for openness and transparency in the use of experts and for the publishing of the composition of the committees and working groups consulted by the Commission when preparing its proposals, which will certainly highlight the role played by UNICE, the confederation of European big business.

Political group: GUE-NGL