GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lannoye. I share his view that the Commission communication is too long on description, but too short on action. I should like to make two points. The first point concerns the section of the communication on trade for sustainable development. The Commission is still too willing to make the unthinking assumption that trade liberalisation is an aim in itself, rather than a tool to serve the greater purpose of sustainable development. Contrary to the Commission's assertion that most causes of global inequality are unrelated to globalisation, the widening gap between the rich and the poor has developed precisely because unregulated markets and free capital mobility have tended to favour the countries, companies and individuals most able to harness these forces for their own benefit, at the expense of those with fewer resources or less political and economic influence. Accelerated environmental degradation over recent years has occurred as a direct result of the increase in resource consumption and economic activity generated under globalisation. Secondly, coming from Parliament's rapporteur on corporate social responsibility, the Commissioner will not be surprised to be told that his commitment to simply promoting the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprise is wholly inadequate, in Parliament's view, as the European Union's contribution to developing global corporate accountability. In today's global economy there is mounting evidence that multinationals registered in the north, the majority of them within the European Union, are actually causing harm in developing countries. Transgressions include abusing workers' rights and causing them bodily harm, destroying local lands and livelihoods, promoting harmful products to consumers, breaking national laws and undermining local democracy. That is why we will support Paragraph 59 in the resolution. The EU should use its development assistance and other external powers to pursue the objective of binding minimum standards with respect to the social and environmental performance of companies. Commissioner, you can make a good start by making a clear and unambiguous commitment in your response to support the proposed framework convention on corporate accountability at the Johannesburg Summit. I look forward to your answer.

Political group: PSE
The Randzio-Plath report notes that employment prospects have deteriorated in 2003, but puts forward lazy and repetitive explanations. According to the report, if there has been a decline in the growth rate, it is due to structural reforms and, if we are moving away from full employment, it is due to delays in the implementation of the Lisbon strategy. In my view, the opposite has happened. The current slump is the result of salary reductions and the cutback in public spending. It is, however, also the result of stifling interest rate control. The report pursues a profitless line by calling on Member States to favour industrial competitiveness over needs, and to eliminate tax obstacles by doing without the means to balance public finances in the form of a tax on investment income. Such misguided stubbornness turns its back on the perennial objectives of skill and effort in research and development, which the report otherwise promotes. It is discouraging to see to what extent this neo-liberal ideology is unchanging. The same report could have been written two years ago, and the next one will be similar. This is why I again voted against this recital of absurd dogmas that lead, across Europe, to unemployment and inequalities. - Report: Bigliardo (A5-0044/2004)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Ladies and gentlemen, at the time of the discussions regarding the Treaty of Amsterdam, we were delighted, myself in particular, at the inclusion of Article 13 on discrimination on the basis of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or philosophical convictions – non sectarian, I might add – handicap in any form, age or sexual orientation. This was, moreover, the basis for proposed measures to combat discrimination. These proposals involve two draft directives and one action programme intended to support the efforts of the Member States. It is extremely difficult, of course, both for me and for my fellow Members, to give a precise opinion on measures of such great significance in just two minutes. As regards the Mann report on equal treatment in employment, and let me congratulate the rapporteur, I shall confine myself to pointing out that I am, personally, satisfied that it has been possible to reduce the number of permissible exemptions to a minimum. Some possibilities have been retained, however, which I must admit I find somewhat shocking. One such is the possibility of derogation on terms of religion. The provision according to which the notion of professional, essential and crucial requirement may justify exemptions on the grounds of religion is not, in my view, acceptable. As a confirmed secularist, I could not possibly endorse it. In the same vein, the exemptions authorised on the basis of age must be treated with the utmost vigilance since, in practical terms, that often leads to the exclusion of the oldest employees. On the subject, now, of the programme to combat discrimination, the Commission’s proposals are satisfactory. Some aspects needed clarifying, and now they have been. I congratulate the rapporteur on this and, in conclusion, I shall vote in favour of these reports, with the exception of the point I raised just now.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, mountain ridges are a hindrance to crossing traffic, and so, tunnels offer the only solution to provide the shortest possible connecting route. It is an expensive solution; construction of such tunnels initially claimed many lives, and it was until recently used only in exceptional circumstances. The nineteenth century saw the start of railway tunnels, to which were added, in the twentieth, tunnels for cars. Meanwhile, engineering is increasingly enabling us to build tunnels under cities, under protected areas of outstanding natural beauty and under sea straits. These days, tunnel piping is inserted even under flat land consisting of soft, waterlogged peaty soil, as is the case in the Netherlands. Not only are tunnels now used on a much broader scale than in the past, but they are also used much more often. As a result, there is a considerably greater risk of explosions, fires and of people being suffocated. Until the recent fires, starting with the one in the Mont Blanc tunnel, far too little attention was paid to these risks. Meanwhile, economic interests mean that two-way lorry traffic across busy roads in one tunnel pipe is still permitted. Where this traffic is halted temporarily, it meets with protests from those living in the vicinity when it is allowed to resume. On the basis of experience gathered to date, I have reached the conclusion that tunnels without separate lanes and without parallel escape tunnels are unsuitable for use by large numbers of cars and by heavy goods traffic. Roads offer individual drivers too much freedom for dangerous and deviant behaviour. Tunnels offer more options for rail traffic, but here too, escape routes are required. Moreover, it is likely that the two extremely long tunnels that will run under Switzerland, and the Brenner base tunnel, designed to run from Germany to Italy under Austria, will be suitable only for freight traffic. My colleague, Mr Markov, has already addressed the issues of supervision and cross-border tunnels. Whilst I unreservedly support proposals to improve emergency exits and to make them suitable for wheelchair users, or other measures to step up safety requirements, I do not consider them to be adequate.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the current political crisis in Sri Lanka is having enormous repercussions on the peace process and the country’s economic future. The political divides and the rivalry between Sri Lanka’s President and its Prime Minister threaten the island’s stability and prosperity. Last week, in fact, three ministers were sacked, the parliament was suspended and a state of emergency was declared. The conflict between these leaders is based in particular on the issue of the attitude to be adopted in relation to the Tamil separatists. Mrs Chandrika Kumaratunga wishes to suspend the peace talks with the separatists, while the Sri Lankan Prime Minister wants to continue with them. It is essential that some understanding be reached in order to put an end to the crisis of confidence that is rife among the population, who are already weary of the conflict involving the Tamil separatists, which has gone on for over twenty years. The Sri Lankan people are suffering and have suffered a great deal as a result of the terrorist acts carried out in their country and the climate of insecurity to which these have led. They hope for peace in their island and a stable future. Those are the facts that the Sri Lankan authorities must consider. While the Sri Lankans welcome the progress made in the peace process involving the Tamil separatists, the instability that the President has provoked leaves the country in the grip of a serious crisis of confidence, from both a political and an economic point of view. At a political level, the departure of the Norwegian negotiators, who played a key role in the peace negotiations between the Tamil separatists and the Sri Lankan government, is extremely regrettable. At an economic level, in the textile industry for example, numerous traders are complaining that many orders are being cancelled. Another sector that drives the country’s economy, the tourism industry, is unfortunately also in turmoil. The fact is that travel agents are also reporting a number of cancellations. Many Sri Lankans believe that the gravity of the situation is directly linked to the attitude of the President, who refuses to continue with the peace talks. In light of this climate of hostility, we are calling on the Sri Lankan authorities to resolve these issues as quickly as possible so that they can finally offer their people the stability and the security they deserve.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, about two weeks ago, the British authorities arrested a Greek student because, according to press reports, he was collating material for a dissertation on terrorism. I realise it is up to the British authorities to decide on what criteria they arrest students, but they had a duty, which they failed to honour, to tell the authorities in Greece, as another Member State of the European Union. This is intolerable and must not happen again. We are not living in an era of autocratic regimes. We cooperate within a framework and countries have to tell other countries if for any reason they arrest their citizens.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the agreement being promoted will be the first application of the Stability Pact in south-eastern Europe, Its terms, which the Swoboda report accepts, are certainly not directed towards peace, but towards greater political and economic dominance of the country, and towards controlling its natural wealth, overexploiting its workforce and continuing to use that country as a springboard against the countries and peoples in the area who are resisting the new order. All this, in exchange for the promise of future accession to the European Union. The report accepts these attitudes along with the more general policy of the European Union on south-eastern Europe. It is characteristic that the report congratulates FYROM on the constructive stance it maintained during the NATO attack, eulogises its pacifist role because it allowed its territory to be used as a base for NATO forces, but, of course, remains silent about the indignation of its people, which was manifested by mass demonstrations during the NATO bombardments. Finally, because we consider that both the stability pact and the stabilisation and association process the European Union is implementing in countries in that area, will create new problems there, new tribulations for their peoples, and will reinforce the dominant role of the American and European imperialists, we will be voting against the report in an expression of our solidarity with the people of FYROM.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We voted against the draft European Constitution because, over and above the details of the wording, this Constitution is destined to become one of the legal foundations of laws designed to preserve the prevailing social order and to ensure the privileges of the wealthy. Our rejection of the European Constitution in no way means that we are falling back on the French Constitution, which was also devised to protect the middle-classes and to sustain exploitation. We advocate a completely unified Europe, from one end of the continent to the other, but one which is free from domination by the upper middle class and by the dictatorship of financial groups on the economy; we have no sympathy for anachronistic forms of sovereignty. We abstained on the majority of the amendments because even the best intentioned ones still propose improving a Constitution that we reject. We abstained on the amendments proposing to organise referenda on the draft Constitution. Besides the fact that the questions are always skewed by the authorities asking them, we do not consider referenda to be a way for the citizens to express their will in a social structure in which the wealthy hold a monopoly over information tools and the media.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to know whether perhaps the question I put to the President-in-Office of the Council does not deserve a reply, as I have not heard his reply. Mrs Díez González, who appears to be the representative of the Spanish Government here, has replied to me. I have a lot to say to her, but this speech is addressed to the President-in-Office of the Council, rather than to her.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, throughout the world, development aid is giving way to humanitarian aid. Even here, the Directorate-General for External Relations is gradually taking charge of the areas that were formerly the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Development, with humanitarian aid compensating for the failures of external policy. It is not just a question of providing aid, but also of restoring balance in the use of natural resources among all of the world’s inhabitants. Unfortunately, humanitarian aid cannot play this role and must not serve only to bail out a liberal policy which at the same time murders the populations of the countries in receipt of aid. Sustainable development is all but absent from the European Union’s humanitarian policy – we are quite unprepared for natural disasters and do little to prevent conflicts. Systematic training in how to deal with earthquakes and floods as well as in preventing violence would be welcome in many parts of the world. Instead of this, the European Union always reacts too late – once the disaster has been declared. This lack of planning can be seen in the programmes of aid for health and nutrition, and gender issues are also ignored. The connection between humanitarian and development policy, although crucial, is systematically missing. It is important not to do just what is strictly necessary, but to prevent the effects of these catastrophes, and first of all, the factor that makes them worse, which is poverty. We hope that cross-sector posts will be created in order to link ECHO and the Directorate-General for Development. These could also initiate cooperation with other worldwide organisations in the field of humanitarian aid, beginning with those in Member States, since there is a considerable lack of coordination in their actions. It is equally important that operating and assessment costs do not exceed 20% of ECHO’s budget. Payments must also be made more rapidly. Venezuela has been waiting since last December for the aid it was promised. Even if we are satisfied overall with the European Union’s humanitarian policy, and if we are generally happy with Mr Imbeni’s report, this policy must, to a greater extent, be in keeping with sustainable development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I wish to express my support for those who have said that this debate must not be about the safeguarding of possession, but about aid for those who need it most. I also want to say frankly that, in my considered opinion, nobody must close his eyes to the fact that enlargement is going to present us all with great challenges, those of a financial nature among them. The Germans learned their lesson through reunification, when the citizens were told at first that it would involve no fiscal burdens for them. This was demonstrably false. Let there be no misunderstandings – of course we want enlargement. But we must squarely face the consequences for structural policy. We should not simply be told ‘as you were’, and I do not believe that we will be. If we are not to forfeit the trust of people in the affected regions, we must point this out clearly, honestly and at an early stage. If there is not to be a rude awakening, we must explore the possibilities of full support for the candidate countries in building up their infrastructure and, at the same time, concern ourselves with continuing to bring the weakest regions of the Fifteen up to the average. The success of this will depend on making certain changes which would have been required even without enlargement. First, there is the fact that the cohesion countries can point to very variable results from the catching-up process, and it is evident that the greatest successes were achieved where the actors were on the spot and shared a commitment to maximising the efficiency of the support. Moreover, project evaluation needs further improvement and efficient management needs greater rewards than in the past if the effectiveness of the means employed is to be assessed. Last but not least, there is no getting away from the need for closer dovetailing with the other EU policies, in particular the common agricultural policy. I believe that both targets can be reached through the decentralisation and simplification that Mr Barnier has mentioned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we support this oral proposal. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) Before the vote on paragraph 20:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Evans' argument does not hold good. This morning, we already voted on two other reports – four, in fact – which were also discussed this morning. In that respect, the debate is finished. There was, however, a chance that we had to vote on my report tomorrow, Wednesday, had the debate not been concluded. As it happens, the debate is finished, all nominal lists were available last night, and there is no problem at all about the order of the amendments, because given the contributions of the various groups, I cannot imagine that the voting list would look any different. I cannot therefore see any formal, or other, argument to postpone the vote. (Applause) (Parliament rejected the request) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0135/2004) by Herbert Bösch, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the protection of the financial interests of the Communities and fight against fraud – Annual Report 2002 (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Recommendation for second reading: Schmitt (A5-0179/2004)

Political group: PPE-DE
No business can operate without the people who do the work. The shop floor has great insight into what goes wrong and how things can be improved. That insight is often ignored; after all, these workers are not hired to pass judgement. According to traditional power relations, only ownership and management count. Workers seem nothing but a necessary evil who are completely irrelevant to the business and who are only hired temporarily from the outside world. In the case of reorganisations, it is the shareholders and managers who make the decisions; the workers feature at the bottom of the list. Thousands of people are asked to leave because another product requiring other skills is deemed more profitable, because production is shifted to a country where wages are lower or even because the business wants to penalise the workers for wanting better working conditions. Unfortunately, the rapporteur is not suggesting that workers should be given the right to free access to information and to suspensive veto. If suspensive veto were to be applied during restructuring, alternatives could first be considered and developed in full public view and with the use of all the expertise available, and the monopoly of management and owners of the businesses would subsequently be broken. - Blokland report (A5-0267/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my group takes a rather different view from that of the last speaker. We believe that it is right for Parliament to be consulted. We believe that in a number of areas which are contentious – for example, the dangers of non-ionising radiation – not enough is known within the science for us to pass this by. My group will also support the amendment, which other colleagues and I have signed in the name of the Socialist Group, for the deletion of paragraph 4. Why do we do that? Not because we necessarily disagree with the Scientific Committee on the issue of whether radiation can be safe for foodstuffs, but because it is not the whole story. The question is, why is this being done? Is it really for the benefit of the consumer? Is it something for which there is a consumer demand? If that was the case, we would not have as many cases as there are, certainly in my country, of illegal and covert irradiation. This has been carried out because they do not want consumers to know about it. They particularly do not want people to know about and reflect upon the trade which is more concerned with cost-cutting than with the end product in terms of consumer satisfaction. Mrs Breyer referred to shrimps being taken from one market to another, peeled in one continent and brought back to another. This is not due to safety concerns or the attractiveness of the product: it is all about the profits that go into this business. In the light of the Commission's options as presented, we, like the rapporteur, take the view that the list should not be further extended at this stage. The onus of proof continues to be on those who wish to do these things. The proof has not yet been provided.

Political group: PSE