GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, it is important that we have, or that we at least discuss, the Johannesburg proposals for legally binding international frameworks on corporate accountability and liability, particularly on the basis of core labour standards. I voted for this report, even though it was much weaker than originally proposed. It has indeed disappointed some of the citizens' organisations active in this field, because amendments were not sustained by Parliament on social and environmental reports on all levels of company and supply chain, on ethical pension funds and their investment policies, on the creation of multi-stakeholder platforms which include business, trade unions, NGOs, public authorities and those from development countries. It is, nevertheless, welcome as there are some important issues which at least have had an airing and which we can hopefully pursue further in Johannesburg. So I support the report although I regret that it has been weakened in transit through Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I shall not try to deceive you – this is not a point of order. I just wanted to speak briefly. Mr Swoboda quite rightly said that we must carry out an enquiry. I would like to say, however, that the Echelon affair is being investigated by a temporary committee and not a committee of enquiry.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, Mr President, Lothar was a quite ordinary name hitherto. However, it has now achieved notoriety. The hurricane of the same name swept across Europe claiming numerous victims, mainly in France and Germany, but also in Switzerland, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. The wind triumphed over electricity pylons, roofs, traffic signs and, ultimately over the forest. We have heard that in a short space of time the storm left us with approximately 120 million cubic metres of solid timber, and this is only an estimate. I have listened to you very attentively Commissioner, and welcome with open arms the fact that you are intending to go and see for yourself the effects the catastrophe has had in France and in Germany. If Mrs Schreyer is to visit the Black Forest sometime in the next few days, then any one farmer might ask her how the Commission and Europe would be able to help him as an individual. What would you say to the forestry manager if his enterprise happened not to be in an Objective 2 region, or in a 5b region? What answer will the Commission give, when it is on the scene, when you tell the forestry worker that we support road construction and dam-building, and we want to rebuild our cultural heritage and create tourist attractions etc.? All this is well-intentioned advice. However, I come from an area in Northern Germany where the forestry industry predominates and I can tell you that we are already feeling the effects of the immense damage. The thinning-out we need is not being attended to; the forests are not being tended to the requisite degree. What we need the Commission to do as a matter of urgency is to approve national aid, so as to avoid the competition issue being raised again at a later date.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it has been said in this House a number of times, and it is not unimportant: there is wide unanimity across the political divide on this issue, and you must support it in the forthcoming negotiations in Bonn. That is not all: for many European issues, we have to battle against public opinion, but in this debate, we have the backing of a huge majority of the public opinion which is urging governments to take further steps in Kyoto. That means that on the eve of Bonn, we have to propose a number of measures at the Conference, but also at Community and national level. As has been said a few times, we can, and must, as Europe, play a global role in this debate. This role suits us without a doubt, and largely discredits others, of course, including Mr Bush and his administration. We must also try to bring the others on board, that we must definitely do, but not by putting concluded agreements at risk. If the Protocol is adopted with unlimited trade in hot air or unlimited use of coal pits, the effect on the climate will be limited. I should like to add one point to the debate. I do not think there is room for complacency. We have not yet ratified the Protocol either, nor have we completed any clear, concrete plans of action. I would therefore urge the Belgian presidency to tackle this issue with both hands. In what form will we be trading our emissions? Will this be done among States, or also among businesses? And how will the trade among sectors be regulated? And also, what is the latest on the national plans of action? What are we going to do about them, and have any budgets been earmarked in this connection? I should therefore ask the Belgian presidency to address this matter properly in the next couple of months.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to ask how Question Time came to be dropped yesterday although there was enough time to include it in the course of the part-session. There is no Question Time today either. I believe that this is one of Members' fundamental rights and I would like to ask that Question Time should be held whenever possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, referring to this document that he mentioned, Mr Ortuondo talks to us about centralism. I do not know if he is referring to the centralism of Spain in relation to the Basque Country. I am sure he is not, because, as he knows, the Basque region has the highest degree of self-government of any European region. However, I would like to ask him whether that document also talks about the statements by the leader of his party when he said to ETA: “Do not kill the cooks, kill the powers that be”. By “the powers that be” he is referring to the Popular Party. I am sure, Mr Ortuondo, that in this respect “the powers that be” means the Popular Party, and the Socialist Party, and that the whole of this Parliament embodies that power. The whole of this Parliament is therefore in a position to consider itself a victim of ETA. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor. I do not need three minutes. I will be very brief. During his statement, if the translation was correct, Mr Berlusconi said that a director is currently shooting a film in Italy about the concentration camps, and was inviting me to take the role of the Kapo ... (Heckling) ... that is to say, the role of the SS henchman. I have only one thing to say to you in response: my respect for the victims of fascism prevents me from saying a single word about this. However, I am quite clear in my mind that it is very difficult to accept a situation in which a President-in-Office of the Council, when he comes up against the slightest contradiction during a debate, loses his composure in this way. (Loud and sustained applause from the left and centre left) (Standing ovation)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, short sea shipping is the most economical, most efficient, and most suitable solution for remote regions. I would like to thank Mrs Peijs for her interesting and excellent proposal. In my own country, shipping is almost totally of this short sea shipping type: in other words, it is important to us in that respect. We are unusual in that we only have a land connection with the rest of the EU in the north, so the importance of maritime traffic is enormous. On top of everything, our railways have a different gauge from those found elsewhere in the European Union. What is most peculiar about our situation is, however, that our shipping always comes to a halt in the winter unless certain measures are taken, because the sea freezes. This has led to a situation where we have had to establish a special fleet to break the ice. They are powerful ships: one ship’s energy is equivalent to that used by a whole city. This being the case – as we have this hindrance to movement – we hope that this ice-breaking operation may be supported, as the obstacle has been ordained by the Lord, and we cannot do a thing about it. It is also to be regretted that the effects on employment and welfare of this sort of traffic have not been highlighted sufficiently. A cheap workforce is a huge risk in these circumstances, especially in the north, and especially in ice. How can someone wearing shorts, who has no professional skill to his name, cope in minus thirty degrees and three metres of ice? That is the problem. Aircrews are always well trained, but the same cannot be said of the cheap workforce that is employed on ships. I expect the Commission to look into this matter.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the great majority of my group have voted against the Watson report on the European arrest warrant. However, our motives were very different from those of Mr Berlusconi, and that is why I should like to make this contribution, mainly to avoid being tarred with the same brush. In principle, the Group of the are in favour of a European arrest warrant, but only after a number of minimum standards have been put in place in the field of law of criminal procedure, for example with regard to legal aid or to criminal investigation methods. The rationale underlying a European arrest warrant is that all legal systems are more or less the same, and that it really does not matter in which country one is sentenced. That is not yet the case at the moment. If these systems were alike, it would not be so difficult to establish these minimum standards. I know that sooner or later, everyone will support these minimum standards, but our group has made them a condition for a European arrest warrant. As such, this is absolutely and fundamentally a different viewpoint from that adopted by Mr Berlusconi, and it should not be confused with his. Neither should it be confused with a kind of anti-European sentiment. We are in favour of a European arrest warrant, but only when this condition has been met.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by praising the quality, breadth and importance of the European Commission draft directive. I must say, however, that I regret that this text, which is, after all, an integral part of the Telecom package, has been withdrawn from the competency of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to the benefit of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which, in my view, seems to be becoming an extremely bad habit. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that, even if they are included in the same directive, universal service and consumer protection are two areas which are, admittedly, related and important, but they are different. Consumer protection requires guarantees, clarity, simplicity and, above all, therefore, transparency. The amendments voted in committee are a step in this direction. Other amendments could have gone further still, if a majority in the committee had wanted this to happen. Universal service is a much wider concept which has many other more complex goals. Universal service requires a definition at a given time, but it also requires the means and mechanisms to ensure its development over time. It of course requires planned funding. Lastly, I would reiterate that it is independent of the legal nature of the company that provides it. I welcomed the European Commission’s text, but I remain convinced of the need for a framework directive for all European universal services. I would like to finish with a personal comment, by reaffirming that universal service cannot and should not be what could be called the fading leftovers of liberalisation. It has, for me and for my colleagues, a value and an objective in itself, which is one of the conditions of social cohesion, which provided the basis of our Europe. It should, therefore, be desired, defined, affirmed and chosen on its own merits.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a new parliament is to be elected in Cambodia on 27 July, and some twenty political parties want to take part in this election. That is in itself an indication of some degree of progress towards democracy. At the end of the day, of course, what counts is the way in which these elections are conducted, as well as what happens before and after them, and whether the process is fair and deserves to be described as democratic. It is this that we have good reasons to doubt. Violence continues to overshadow the preparations for the election; opposition politicians are intimidated, two of them having been murdered in June alone. Everything demonstrates the total power wielded by the autocratic Communist Party, which evidently cannot reconcile itself to the idea that other parties have to exist. Rules on local elections are infringed, as a rule by the local authorities, and such breaches go unpunished. The quality of a democracy depends on freedom of access to the media, above all to the electronic media, something that is not guaranteed, not least because the latter continue to be under the control of the Cambodian People’s Party and the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, or of organisations and persons associated with it. The European Union is sending observers to monitor the Cambodian elections. To do so makes no sense unless they are able to do their work unhindered, and the country’s government must ensure that they are able to do so. By demanding all these things, we are not in some way illicitly interfering in the country’s internal affairs, but are acting on the basis of a cooperation agreement, Article 1 of which states in clear terms that respect for the principles of democracy and for basic human rights are among the elements of this agreement and that they must be adhered to by both parties. Since 1992, the European Union has been deeply involved in Cambodia. Having invested some EUR 250 million in the country, we can legitimately make certain demands as regards the fairness of elections. We therefore demand that the Cambodian Government should put an end to the violence and prevent the intimidation of opposition politicians and their parties. Our further demand of the Cambodian authorities is that they should ensure that these elections can be held freely and without interference. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must firstly congratulate the Commission on the expediency and quality of its communication on women and science which highlights the current imbalance and the need to change this situation. I also want to congratulate my colleague, Mrs McNally, on her excellent report and the proposals which it contains. To my mind, this report could not have come at a better time. It is a recognised fact that the participation of women in working life is essential for the future of Europe. The rate of employment in Europe is lower than that in the United States of America and Japan and the low rate of female activity in the majority of the Member States is therefore not surprising. Although the role of women is essential in increasing European production, the importance of their contribution to the financing of social security and, therefore, the maintenance of a social model, must also be mentioned. Yet it is not enough just to analyse the amount of work carried out by women in the European Union for the quality of this work is also fundamental. It is also essential for society to recognise that women with professional qualifications are capable of participating in the sectors which are the most demanding in terms of professional training and in which the European Union has major shortages. The European Union has between 700 000 and 800 000 vacant jobs due to a lack of people with the training needed to develop the information society and use new technologies. Women scientists in Europe must therefore be provided with every support and every opening so that in this sector they can play the role which they not only deserve but which is also vital to Europe. This report is opportune because the Portuguese presidency is going to hold an extraordinary summit in Lisbon next March on employment, economic reforms and cohesion for a Europe of innovation and knowledge. The aim of this summit is to establish the bases of a development model which can put Europe in the vanguard of economic competitiveness at world level. This will not be possible without extensive participation by European women scientists. Positive measures must therefore be taken in this respect, instead of simply allowing societal developments and mainstreaming policies to have an effect. I have high hopes that the Portuguese presidency will give due attention to the participation of women in this programme, not only because the Portuguese Ministry for Equality is committed to this but also – and this is no coincidence – because the coordination of the programme to be presented at the Lisbon Summit was entrusted by the Portuguese Prime Minister to a woman scientist. I hope that the good intentions of the Commission and Council will be translated into specific proposals aimed at improving the participation of European women, in quantitative and qualitative terms, in the areas of science and new technologies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the enormous amount of work she has done, but I do not congratulate her on the content of the report. Mr Lange, I know we are talking about a White Paper, but this White Paper sketches a mere initial outline of our views, and when we in the express our opinions, we like our subsequent actions to be consistent with them. It is no good saying one thing now and then doing the opposite when the time comes to legislate. Let this be clear: this is a major sector of industry, the leading sector or one of the leading sectors in Europe. This sector employs millions of people and includes tens of thousands of small businesses. However, it is also a sector that is causing concern in society because there are 100 000 unknown chemicals being used, and it is therefore right that we should respond to this concern. That is why we consider the Commission’s proposal and the White Paper to be a good starting point, in that it gives us a procedure, a goal and targets to achieve. We welcome the industry’s willingness to bear the cost of this operation of sifting the good chemicals from the bad and providing information. However, what we do not support is the unnecessary expansion, the complicated procedures of expansion, the extension to too vast a range of substances, the use of scientific grounds which are too vague as the basis for forming opinions, which is what the Schörling report advocates. This, ladies and gentlemen, not only harms the chemical industry but also jeopardises the environmental objective we have set ourselves. As the Romans used to say, ‘The best is the enemy of the good’. Let us steer clear of such at times populist, at times fundamentalist attitudes, for our shared, common objective of protecting health and the environment in a sustainable economy against precisely an excess of, so to speak, overexhaustive initiatives, is in jeopardy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am pleased to hear the Commission say that in principle it can accept Amendment No 25. But I was keen to hear whether the Council could accept it, if that were perhaps possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to thank the Danish Prime Minister, but there was a position on the Cyprus issue that was a surprise for me. I think there is a small, delicate and, I hope, unintentional change in the text of the resolution of the Helsinki European Council. The resolution says that the decision on the accession of Cyprus will be taken without a political solution being a pre-condition. Here, the Danish Prime Minister has said that 'a final decision will be taken on the basis of all relevant factors'. This is something very different from Mr Prodi's position, as well as the Commission's position, Mr Verheugen's position, from the European Parliament's position, from the Helsinki position and from the position of the Spanish presidency. I hope that there is no different intention on the part of the Danish presidency and I am expecting to hear confirmation in the second speech by the Danish Prime Minister, that, although we want a political solution and will try for one, it will not be a pre-condition for the accession of Cyprus.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Convention was an assembly of all parliaments, all governments, and the Commission. The Intergovernmental Conference is only an assembly of all the governments. It is quite clear that, in this historic process of giving Europe a constitution, it is no longer the Intergovernmental Conference that enjoys the greater democratic legitimacy, but the Convention. I would therefore see it as quite utterly unacceptable for the Intergovernmental Conference to wreck the political substance and hence the political compromises that the Convention arrived at. Few are saying this – although Mr Voggenhuber has done so in very clear language – but the thought is in the minds of many that the issue of whether the Intergovernmental Conference should alter what came out of the Convention, is also a power issue between the governments and parliaments of the European Union. It has to be made perfectly clear that any change in what the Convention produced would be a vote of no confidence in the parliaments, which made up a majority in the Convention. That would certainly have an effect on the process of ratification, whether that be by the parliaments or by referendum, and hence on public acceptance of the Constitution. Commissioner Barnier, you always took a very progressive line in the Convention. We did a lot of work together, and we did it well, but now I am disappointed in the Commission, which accepts the position of certain governments rather than that of most of the parliaments, which do not want any alterations to the Convention’s draft. As I see it, this indicates that the Commission is not up to date. Nor do I know what the IGC is meant to produce by way of a positive outcome. You can just imagine how they will again be haggling, the sort of cattle market it will turn into, and things can, in fact, only get worse. I am not very confident about all this. Finally, Mr Dimitrakopoulos and I were rapporteurs together in Nice, when Parliament demanded much and got little. With the Gil-Robles/Tsatsos report, we are now asking for little and hoping to get much, by which I mean that we are hoping that the IGC will change nothing, and that would be a great deal. I congratulate Mr Gil-Robles and Mr Tsatsos on having formulated this in such exact terms in the historic period in which we find ourselves! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, while I welcome many of the improvements that have been made, I want to make a point concerning the management side: we would very much welcome some recycling facilities, given the sheer amount of paper that appears every day, much of which is not kept. We would like people to look into that please. There is an issue that was raised with me by a number of assistants who were refused entry to the public gallery even though there was space. We quite understand that the public has to have priority – it is their building too. But we would ask that when there is space our assistants should be allowed access: it is not always convenient for them to be in our offices if we have visitors. Finally, a minor point that was raised with me by a colleague who had to leave early. Could we have water provided during the sessions? People here find the atmosphere in this building very dry, not just politically, but in environmental terms, and we would very much welcome that provision.

Political group: Verts-ALE