GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I would first of all like to thank Mr Menrad for having taken into account most of the proposals made by our committee, particularly – and I shall mention them briefly – on the definition of information and consultation, enhancing the procedure, enhancing the role of trade unions, reducing the thresholds for membership of these councils and reducing the time limits for establishing European works councils. I would, however, like to stress three points that I consider to be vital. The first point was mentioned in paragraph 12 with the reference to the 1998 directive on redundancies for operational reasons, which provides employee representatives with the possibility of notifying a competent authority on the basis of information submitted by the company’s management, if they believe that alternative solutions have not been explored in order to avoid redundancies, site closures or if there is doubt surrounding the legality of the procedure. I believe that, with regard to current problems in European-based companies, including sometimes those problems which occur when there are mergers and acquisitions authorised by the Commission and by its Competition Directorate, the issue raised, and which was also raised by Mrs Diamantopolou, the Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, in the wake of the Marks [amp] Spencer case, is how do employees, their representatives and their works councils go about notifying the European Commission and showing that their social right is sometimes brushed aside because the issues involved are purely financial and stock market-related. From this perspective, I support Amendment No 5 by Mrs Ainardi and Mrs Figueiredo, and personally I shall be voting in favour of this. The second point, which is related to this amendment, is that of sanctions. I believe that we must put in place considerable sanctions which will act as a deterrent, and also specify – and this is the underlying meaning of one of Mr Menrad’s paragraphs, but I would have liked this to be clearer so that employees and citizens are aware – that, in the event of non-compliance with the procedures for information and consultation, decisions to make employees redundant or to close down sites can be overturned. I will conclude, as Mr Menrad did, by asking the Commission to realise the urgent nature of this request by Parliament, not to wait until 2002 and to formulate a proposal that reflects the determination of the overwhelming majority of the groups to see an increase in the rights of employees of companies that are based in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I agree with Mr Lannoye that it is a question of rules, but the question is – which rules? Unfortunately, all the indications available to us show a desire to turn the future negotiations of the WTO into a further stage in the imposition of rules of liberalisation on a global scale. The European Commission has in fact announced, in its communication in July, that it wishes to liberalise new services, such as health, education, but also investments and public contracts. This wave of liberalisation is clearly justified in the name of the general interest and employment, as you stated, Mr Lamy, in your hearing, indicating that the progressive opening up of markets, both for goods and for services, is in the interest of the Community. However, it is not the results of the liberalisation initiated at Marrakech which are going to calm the fears which you spoke of just now. Did the Union make a serious appraisal in Marrakech? What I observe is that the poor countries are trapped in wretched circumstances and that here we are seeing an increase in unemployment and instability that goes hand in hand with huge profits. We are seeing great mergers and take-overs on a European and global scale. Yesterday and today, the employees of Michelin have been here, in this Parliament building, to dramatically illustrate this idea which governs relationships on a European and world scale. Financial viability comes first. But what about the human beings? What about thought? What about nature? What about solidarity? I do not believe that the choice is between liberalisation and protectionism. I am reassured by the fact that the MAI has been rejected, which shows that intervention is possible. A front could be developed to demand a change of direction. To this end, this Parliament has adopted an amendment from my group which requested a review of the mechanisms of the WTO and the rules procedure, in order to take more account of social, health, environmental and cultural questions. Today, 1,800 organisations are addressing us and calling for changes to the system. Developing countries are demanding a review of the previous agreement. I am also pleased to see that an Intergroup on WTO issues is about to meet. With my group I have taken the initiative to organise an open meeting on these matters during next November’s part-session. Many people expect the European Union to stand up in these negotiations for the values of cooperation, solidarity and the pre-eminence of human beings, as against financial values and the dictates of the market.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on 10 April we debated the González Álvarez report on ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. I was the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market in relation to that report. It was withdrawn on 10 April because of an agreement that there was no adequate legal basis for the measure as it then stood. By way of an emergency, it was rushed through the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development yesterday in a new form without any reference back to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. That is an irregular way of proceeding and I request that Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market be asked, even it is asked to do it quickly, to verify that a legal base exists for this measure in its new form. While I am on my feet on the issue of Rule 63, a lot of the issues under the common fisheries policy reform raise profound issues of legal base, and hopefully that will thoroughly considered in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market as well as the Committee on Fisheries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, a competition-orientated research policy of the kind that we are pursuing today is the best type of social and employment policy of tomorrow. That being the case, Mr Busquin is assuming one of the major responsibilities within the European Community. As far as we are concerned, it is all about encouraging researchers to engage in one-to-one conversations. Scientific studies have demonstrated that one-to-one conversations between researchers are the best way of making progress. What we need to do is to bring researchers from all over the world to Europe, and particularly those from countries wishing to join the EU. Researchers there are producing outstanding results that have yet to be acknowledged and marketed, and which can be intensively developed. This leads us onto the subject of youth. I believe we should make sure that we impart this entrepreneurial spirit, the pleasure derived from innovation and research, to young people. It is good to see young people getting involved in research projects. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to set up a LEONARDO for researchers, an exchange programme between universities, schools, companies and research institutes. I believe that each individual has a great deal of knowledge to contribute, and that, ultimately, communication between specialists is the best method of conveying this knowledge. It is also important for the small and family-run enterprises, but also the suppliers, to have access to the major research institutions, to the top research centres. We in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy have proposed to the Committee on Budgets that an additional allocation be made. We have said that at least 10% of research expenditure must be for the benefit of small- and medium-sized enterprises. I would say that a larger slice, 20% or 30%, should be closely tied in with cooperation between small companies, suppliers, and major research institutes, so as to bring about a dramatic improvement in the networks and in communication in this sector, and create brand new opportunities. An active and passive licensing and patenting policy – I wrote my dissertation on this at university – is the basis of successful research. As we have already heard today, it is vital for the European Union to give attention to this matter. What obstacles are there? I believe we should distinguish between large and small assistance projects, particularly when it comes to expenditure. It is particularly important to keep administrative expenditure to a minimum in the case of small companies and small-scale projects. The Commission ought to concentrate on large projects, albeit with the proviso that the major projects undertaken are divided into small units; a proportion should be stipulated here as well. On a final note, Commissioner, I would just like to say that I am already looking forward to, when the next benchmarking projects.... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
I am very satisfied that the amendments connected with the recognition of relationships between people of the same sex were added to Mr Cornillet’s otherwise excellent report. Regarding some other questions, I would like the report to have had more far-reaching views in the area of, for example, the adoption rights of gay and lesbian couples. Human rights problems that affect sexual minorities are still regrettably common today in the Member States. I think the references to legislation in applicant countries and to the fact that the equal treatment of citizens with regard to different relationships and family models should be taken into consideration in enlargement negotiations are important.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have talked about China many times in this House, and it is excellent that there is now an extensive and overarching report on the EU’s cooperation strategy for the region. I want to congratulate Mr Graça Moura on a very sound report. It is a really good piece of work. China is a huge country of growing importance in the world. The consequences of the economic, social and political transformations faced by the country are unforeseeable. In connection with China’s membership of the WTO – supported by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party – there will be many opportunities for the EU and China to deepen their cooperation. Economically, socially, culturally and politically, we must have an extensive dialogue with China. WTO membership will make demands when it comes to software piracy, environmental issues, trade unions etc, and we can perhaps be of help. It will be no surprise to you, Mr President, that the Group is very concerned about the issue of human rights. We genuinely want to appeal to the Commission to increase the pressure on China where these issues are concerned. Commentators throughout the world are agreed that the human rights situation is deteriorating overall. It seems as if China, just like Russia in the case of Chechnya, is using the fight against terrorism as an alibi in order to commit atrocities against minorities. The ability to practise one’s religion freely in China is strictly limited. Catholics report systematic persecution, and mosques are burned down. In Tibet, there is severe oppression of the Tibetan people, especially of monks. We are also anxious about the torture and persecution of democracy campaigners, trade union activists and dissidents, and the attempt to limit freedom of expression on the Internet is of course unacceptable. The daily arrests, torturing and systematic persecution of Falun Gong practitioners is also very worrying. Even though the Chinese regime appears resolved to break this movement, it will not succeed, and a dialogue must therefore be brought about on this issue. China also executes more people than all other countries put together and, in this area, we must exert pressure in order to bring about a moratorium. These issues must be given the highest priority in our cooperative relations with China. We had hoped that there might not perhaps have been any 2008 Olympic Games in China but, now that these are in fact to take place, we must use them as a means of exerting pressure. I have stood on this platform many times and talked about human rights in China, and many telephone calls have been received from the Chinese Embassy. That will continue. As long as there are Liberals in this House, we shall stand up for human rights in China.

Political group: ELDR
When I voted against the ban on the advertising of tobacco products in 1998, my vote was misconstrued in letters to the editors of Luxembourg newspapers as a vote against the prevention of cancer. I tried to explain at the time that the EC Treaty provided no legal basis for such an advertising ban. The European Court of Justice has now confirmed that my position was correct. Members of Parliament cannot simply let their hearts rule their heads and adopt legislation for which there is no legal basis, however commendable their motives. In my long parliamentary career, which has now spanned 35 years, I have always adhered to this principle. I shall not change my approach and let myself be intimidated by the veritable threatening letters I have been receiving, which demand that I declare my voting intentions so that the writers of these letters can make my intentions public; this means, of course, that they can once again engage in misinformation and subject me to public vilification. These campaigns are waged by means of slogans, because those who conduct them are ignorant of the wide variety of considerations that a parliamentarian has to take into account when examining such a complex piece of legislation as a European directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. I know that tobacco consumption is one of the most frequent causes of death and that public health must remain one of our main concerns, but we have to act within the bounds of our legal powers and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The recommendation for second reading made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy of the European Parliament does not meet these criteria. It not only contains the exaggerated demands of health freaks, which would result in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially women's jobs, to name but one adverse effect, without turning one single chain smoker into a non-smoker. But here too, as in the case of the directive banning tobacco advertising, the legal basis is wrong. An article relating to the internal market certainly cannot be used to justify an export ban. Acceptance of this recommendation for a second reading as it now stands would merely open the door to new litigation. The result would be uncertainty and delays and would only thwart the essentially good intention that underlies this legislative proposal from the European Commission. It is precisely because I do not want this to happen that I have decided to reject the common position, and a motion tabled by my group proposes that the House do likewise.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to remind the House that, several months ago, Parliament rejected an amendment calling for Friday sittings during plenary sessions in Strasbourg to be abolished. At the very least, one would expect Members to abide by their vote. This amendment was rejected by a large majority. Therefore, we cannot now make any changes to our practices for the year 2000. Finally, I would like to join the Members who have spoken in expressing my profound shame at the incident. Parliament was prevented from voting to send aid to Ethiopia by petty political issues. I feel truly ashamed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, tomorrow we are going to be discussing the Stockholm summit which concentrated in part on social inclusion. This communication and report are very important in this context, and I too would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work she has done and the breadth of the consultation she has undertaken. These documents provide a welcome addition, as many have said, to the Article 13 Directive relating to equal treatment at work, which, of course, presupposes the ability to get work or rather to be offered it, and a more inclusive attitude in society. Therefore, I welcome the recognition of inclusive education within this report and the wider understanding and the breaking down of barriers that we hope will come with it. I feel that many of us adults could also do with such education. Inclusion, of course, should start with access to information here, access to all parts of our buildings and, as others have said but I also want to repeat, we need to extend inclusion to the freedom of movement. I would particularly recommend paragraphs 22 and 23, on this concerning the mutual recognition of national cards carried by people with disabilities. That is a frequent subject of petitions and correspondence to many of us in this House. I would also mention, as you might expect from Parliament's rapporteur on the relevant regulation, the need for the exportability of disability benefits for people, not least so that they have the opportunity to meet the financial requirements for residents in some Member States. The reasons for the current practice are not well understood and practice is extremely unjust in that it removes the freedom of choice which other citizens have had. I echo the calls for a further directive which really brings this into a whole rights-based approach.

Political group: Verts-ALE
There will always be differing opinions, this is the essence and vitality of democracy. The more sensitive the issue, the greater sensitivity must be shown in dealing with it. This was obviously not the case, neither in New York during the Beijing + 5 conference, nor in our debate in this Parliament yesterday. In the treatment of Poland and other candidate countries, fundamental principles of democracy and subsidiarity and the political values of this Parliament, as indeed of the new Europe we are in the process of creating, were not respected. Amendments put forward by the EU delegation in New York do not and could not represent a consensus position of the Member States of the Union: on the contrary, certain of these amendments flagrantly contravened the constitution of my country of Ireland, and I have no doubt the legislative position of other countries which seek to diminish rather than promote the practice of abortion. Regarding paragraph H of this resolution, 'sexual rights' is an undefined term not included in Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty nor in the Beijing + 5 Platform for Action. This new undefined term causes great difficulty for many countries including mine, as it could for example imply support for the sexual rights of paedophiles. I will therefore abstain from voting on this resolution. We have just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Robert Schuman Declaration, the father of Europe. We would surely want to uphold the spirit, the ideals, and the values which formed the foundation of our European unity. Part of the Schuman legacy is to respect the diversity of Europe and the emerging cultures of the developing world. Consensus should be our motif, not imposition or intimidation. (The sitting was suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Parliament made it quite clear when we debated the Sixth Environmental Action Programme that our advocacy of reusable packaging is based on considerations of environmental policy. Our experience in Germany shows that this system has demonstrated its ecological steering function, in that fewer cans are spoiling the environment. So, when you say on the one hand, that you are not against cans, I agree with you, but I cannot quite understand why, on the other hand, you apply double standards. I am no more satisfied than you are with these individual solutions; we would all have preferred a standardised system. You will be aware, though, that it is not policymakers who bear responsibility in this instance; massive pressure was exerted by industry, especially by traders. Now we see individual solutions in Spain and Portugal too. I would like to ask you, Commissioner, why you allow individual solutions in two Member States but not in another. When you tell us how you are not opposed to deposits on cans, and how the environmental action programme has shown you to be a firm advocate of reusability, I really do ask myself why we in the European Union do not do what has just been referred to, and introduce harmonisation, thereby making a statement about our desire to improve the environment and also to increase the reuse of packaging, firstly, because it really does play an ecological role, and, secondly, because reusability – as we know – makes jobs safer. Why, for the sake of preventing waste, do we not go ahead and make reusable packaging mandatory throughout the European Union? That would make your arguments consistent with each other. If we do not, then many will get the impression that we really are applying double standards, with individual solutions being permitted in some Member States but not in Germany. That is something on which I would like an answer from you. You must not, of course, give the impression that what the current state of affairs is primarily about is mounting a campaign against Germany’s environmental policy decisions; on the contrary, the Commission, too, must demonstrate that it wants environmental integration. If you, Commissioner, are a supporter of the internal market, then it is your duty as much as anyone else’s to have an integrated approach to environmental policy. Avoiding the piling-up of rubbish means backing reusability, for that is what we have decided in the environmental action programme and on many occasions in Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE