GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we in our group discovered, after the group meeting, that there was a compromise amendment, Amendment No 70. I must explain that we were not invited to participate in this so-called compromise which, for many of us, contains proposals which we are unable to agree with. Nor does the Commissioner agree with them, as she has told us. Unfortunately, however, there is no separate vote on a compromise amendment. I must therefore explain that, for some of us, whilst we agree with the spirit of the proposal that there should be no discrimination against fathers, there is still a difference between paternity and maternity, at least as things are arranged at present, since men cannot become pregnant and they cannot give birth. I should like to say that we have voted freely, because we should have liked to participate in a compromise, because we have an amendment which... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commission’s main instruments for overcoming regional disparities are the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. It is therefore crucial that the European Parliament drafts its broad indicative guidelines without threatening the principle of subsidiarity, given that establishing the development strategy for each country falls to the respective Member States. Unfortunately, the European Commission has already moved ahead with its guidelines and Parliament’s position on the programmes for 2000-2006 does not carry much weight. It is nevertheless important to reiterate the need for the main priority of these funds to be the development of the countries and regions with the greatest problems and of the outermost regions, of which the Portuguese regions of the Azores and Madeira are examples. This must be done with the objective of achieving economic and social cohesion. The truth is though, that the Commission’s guidelines do not fully meet these objectives. On the other hand, it is crucial that there are precise indications and sufficient funds in areas such as creating decent jobs – with rights – effectively promoting equality in law and opportunity, and supporting the social economy and solidarity. There must also be support for rural development, for small and medium-sized enterprises, for improving the quality of life of urban populations in deprived areas, specifically in the field of social housing, with a view to achieving sustainable urban development.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I believe we are all aware of the fact that the distribution of these tasks between the Member States is incredibly uneven. We know, of course, that Greece will bear a heavy burden and that Spain and Italy bear heavy burdens that are completely unreasonable in relation to the average income in these countries, especially when comparison is made with a country like Denmark, which is a comfortably long way away from the influx of refugees. We now see a number of countries which are, as I say, a comfortably long way away from the influx of refugees considerably tightening up on their refugee and asylum policy. Britain is doing so, and so is Denmark. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, a joint resolution needs to be adopted as a matter of urgency. Some joint projects in this area are also needed without delay, as is a sharing of the burden if we are not, in these circles, to end up very seriously at odds with one another over this problem.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too should like to congratulate both the rapporteur and the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. However, congratulations must, of course, go first and foremost to Mr Södermann; he has been highly receptive to numerous complaints from European citizens about maladministration in the Commission recruitment procedure and has drafted an own-initiative report in order to solve the problem. I am delighted that the Commission has accepted many of the Ombudsman's suggestions. However, I think there is still one lacuna: it refuses to design a system of integrated principles with clear guidelines which would result in completely objective recruitment competitions. This is the only way to limit arbitrariness and the resultant complaints – well-founded or not, that we do not know – about competitions with pre-determined results. Technical problems, however difficult, cannot obstruct the political objective of transparency. If they could, there would be no point in even discussing transparency. The President of the Commission himself has repeatedly assured us that transparency in the administration of European affairs is an absolute priority. I do not believe, when he said this, that he was unaware of the difficulties in achieving this objective. Allow me to finish by saying that the Commission has a obligation to comply with the recommendations of the European Ombudsman and to design a full system of objective examinations for two reasons: first, because it is legally obliged to do so under Article 255 of the Treaty, as revised by the Treaty of Amsterdam introducing the principle of transparency. This is why we are calling on the Council to work with the Commission and issue the relevant directive. And secondly, because, from a purely political point of view, its credibility depends on it. Unlike the Member States, with their long history, the European Union has only a short past, which is why it must create the expectation of something new. And the something new in this case is that it must apply best practices and avoid anything which experience tells us will damage its credibility within the Member States. The European Union needs to give a greater impression of reliability than the Member States, which have different ties with their citizens, such as ties of common descent; the European Union's main link is the respect which the citizens of Europe expect of it.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should very briefly like to welcome a new Member of the European Parliament, Yiannis Patakis, who comes from the same town as I do. May I join everyone else in welcoming him and wishing him every success in his work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as I have declared it to other people already I thought it was only fair to declare it to this House that I will be abstaining because of pecuniary interests.

Political group: ELDR
Although this area of indirect tax is reviewed every two years, the Labour delegation for the UK sees no reason to change the current Annex H. This, we believe, should be the responsibility of the national governments as long as they are non-distortive in terms of trade and industry.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, no one doubts the seriousness of the foot-and-mouth epidemic in the UK. I believe it has been the worst epidemic of this disease that the world has seen. Nobody can doubt the drastic measures that have had to be used to curtail it. The two current hotspots show that this outbreak will be with us for many months. We cannot, on the one hand, say that the containment is too drastic because of the slaughter policy and, on the other hand, that it is too slack because it has let the disease take hold. We did not anticipate effectively the extraordinary scale of animal movements, particularly of sheep, in February 2000 and later. The first of the three inquiries that have now been launched in the UK will need to look at that and perhaps also at the role of one form of CAP subsidy in encouraging some of these forms of animal movement. We provided effective information for our Dutch, French and Irish neighbours and for them it worked. We should study how their containment worked and why. Vaccination, in my opinion, has to be one of the options that the inquiry can recommend if they so find. Finally a word to Mr Sturdy, who called for a European public inquiry. When we had one into BSE, he was not so enthusiastic. But BSE was a new disease. There was a real element of concealment in some of the factors that led to that disease and particularly in the European factor and the fact that we were still exporting infected meal to continental Europe for years after we banned it for ourselves. That was a genuine European inquiry. The epidemiology of this outbreak is not in doubt. I believe that our friends should accept that the British have to get their own house in order and, if that means a public dimension to the inquiries, that case can be made in the UK. It is not like what happened with BSE: we have done our duty by our neighbours. We hope that they will now have the confidence in us to let us help ourselves and see all remedies properly examined so that this dreadful disease can be exterminated.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I voted against the report on biotechnology because it pays no attention to the fundamental interests and concerns of agriculture. That does not mean that I am against innovative access to biotechnology in general, but agriculture requires special treatment and can in no way be compared to the situation in industry. The questions of labelling, traceability and liability are of crucial importance for farmers. Farmers have to buy products of impeccable quality such as seed for their production. Farmers cannot assume any civil liability for any harm caused by genetically modified products. There must be clear rules about this. Since this House has not come out in favour of accepting the amendments tabled in the matter by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I could not vote in favour of the report. The principle of case-by-case assessment must apply for agriculture. An objective and comprehensive examination must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of introducing genetically modified plants.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Prime Minister, the Swedish presidency also deserves praise from those of your opponents in Sweden who are usually niggardly with their compliments. If it is now permissible to say so, I have often felt both joy and pride during these last six months. Nonetheless, I have a substantial objection regarding the decision in favour of transporter’s liability, with large fines for those who do not comply with the EU’s rules. In practice, this means that the responsibility of local authorities for those who come to the European Union seeking asylum is to be taken over by airline employees. That is unacceptable. Prime Minister, you talked in January here in Parliament about a generous attitude on the part of the EU and about ambitions for a humane refugee policy that go beyond the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Transporter’s liability as conceived by the EU is neither humane nor generous. Quite the contrary. To put it in the terms that you yourself used, we in the EU, which is a wealthy part of a global community, ought in actual fact to be able to afford to be both humane and generous. You have had the foresight, Prime Minister, to give Raoul Wallenberg the place he deserves in history. May we never betray his memory.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I, too, agree that not-insignificant progress has been made, and not just in terms of the Copenhagen criteria – a rather cold, aristocratic expression which conjures up an image of this Europe that always wants to be seen as a model of democracy. I am thinking, rather, of the extremely tangible progress made in the field of honesty: the courage and honesty of a President who is able to condemn the corruption present in his own country. However, we would be wronging Turkey if we did not make things absolutely clear to her – being clear, not hypocritical – and being clear means telling her that a great deal remains to be done in terms of democratic civilisation and behaviour, and that means reforms. In this sense, the ability to implement political and social reforms benefiting the Kurdish minority is a highly effective parameter. It is true and important that the Turkish Constitution intends to remove some of the restrictions placed on the use of the Kurdish language but, Mr President, I am appalled by this idea of partial removal of restrictions: the idea of partial removal of restrictions applied to a fundamental right such as the use of one’s own language is a quite horrific contradiction in terms. I am also appalled by the fact that only a cultural right is being recognised to a minority that does not enjoy even the most basic political and social rights. Mr President, we expect Turkey to show signs of cooperation, and a sign in precisely this area – addressing this long-standing dispute with the Kurdish people with courage and tolerance, in a tolerant, civilised manner – would be very well received by the entire European Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is very late, there are very few of us here and I guess all of us are very tired this evening, but actually we are striking a blow in this debate for a citizens' Europe. In the report by Mrs Fourtou, whom I congratulate, the Committee on Petitions is for the first time bringing a specific petition to the floor of the European Parliament. I also congratulate Mr Miller, who gave a great deal of support to the petitioners on this particular item. We have demonstrated that by petitioning citizens can get an item debated on the floor of the European Parliament and that the Commission will come to Parliament, as indeed it came to the Petitions Committee. I thank Commissioner Liikanen for the initiatives that he has put forward. A scientific study was inaugurated under STOA, Parliament's assessment panel. All this was achieved by the free opportunity that all citizens have across Europe to bring to their concerns before this European Parliament. The outcome of this report is a good compromise and one which I hope will command universal support across the House tomorrow. Having said that, it is important to remember that while some citizens come here with their particular concerns, there will be many others who perhaps have a different point of view. Recently a very well-known celebrated TV presenter in the United Kingdom said to me: 'always remember that there are people who need breast implants'. This lady herself had to have a mastectomy for preventative cancer reasons and she has had a very successful implant. So she said: 'do not stop it; do make sure, however, that if there are to be implants, they are safe.' In the proposals from the Women's Rights Committee, the Environment Committee and the Commission, we have a compromise that I am sure we can work with and will be good for Europe and for a citizens' Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Commissioner is in danger of hearing the same speech many times in different languages. This is the English version. I am speaking here on behalf of Mrs Roth-Behrendt, as her father died yesterday and she has had to return home. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy to her. These are the things I want to say. First and foremost, we still do not know enough about BSE and about how it is spread. We certainly do not know enough about its incidence in all the Member States of the Community. We know that we still have it in the UK and although in the coming year it may be that other Member States have more cases than us, that is not a cause for satisfaction for us, but rather for commiseration with those who are still discovering the full horror of what this may mean for them. In the UK we have had over a hundred cases of the human form of CJD. We pray that other Member States will not go through that agony either. The Commissioner will be entitled to say to us, when we talk about inadequate testing, that the Commission has said time after time that the real truth about BSE was hidden because there was no effective testing. If this debate does one thing at least, as Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and others have said, it may impress upon us that the Member States need to be able to do this. I am glad that Mr Olsson accepts that there is an equality of effectiveness between the way the UK takes out animals at 30 months and the slaughter of affected herds and testing of individual animals before they enter the food chain in other European countries. I would not want to see any misunderstandings about that. I believe we need more effective checks for contamination. There are some late, worrying statistics in the UK and elsewhere about animals born after the checks were put into effect, which are still now showing symptoms of BSE. There are obvious suspicions about the hoarding of meat and bonemeal and about where and how the testing is effected. Mr Olsson wants the FBO to be in effect the monitoring agency. I do not mind that, but I believe that nothing should subtract from the responsibility of the individual Member States to ensure that their testing and external controls are effective and are carried through. Then there is the question of animal waste to herbivores. We will be debating this when Mrs Paulsen's report comes back for its chequered second reading. I would simply say that I am in that party in this House that believes, with Mr Olsson, that we should outlaw the feeding of animal waste of any form to ruminant animals. It is high time that was done. Finally, on the issue of sheep, I would just say to Mr Olsson that when we look at that lamentable failure over the testing of what turned out to be cows' brains, all that tells us is that there was incompetence of a grotesque kind. It does not tell us that we have proof positive that BSE has not jumped species once again and got into the sheep population. I would like to hear the Commissioner's views on those things and I apologise for repeating some of the other excellent remarks made in this debate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my entire group, I would first of all like to congratulate Mrs Valenciano on this sterling report and the recommendations it contains, to which I subscribe 200%. By far the majority of women who have undergone genital mutilation – reference is made to 130 million – live in Africa. In at least 28 African countries located between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer, female circumcision is practised systematically. Outside Africa, it is practised in southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, on the Arab peninsula in Yemen, in Oman and in the United Arab Emirates. Even in a country like Egypt, few tourists who visit the sphinx realise that 90% of the women are circumcised. However, some of these women have fled to Europe in order to save their daughters from this treatment, or to have operations in order to ease the pains. But if these women were to return to their native country, they would be ostracized. On the other hand, a summer holiday in the country of origin can turn into a nightmare for migrant girls, when family members deem it necessary to uphold their tradition. I have devoted years of my life to helping women who had fallen victim to the trafficking in human beings. From my own experience, I know that circumcised women are often considered unclean and are therefore sold as prostitutes. In this way, they become victims twice over. African girls, who work in brothels day in day out, who, genitally mutilated, are sold and re-sold, rely on their clients to pay off their debts. I therefore urge the Member States and the Commission once again to recognise genital mutilation, or the threat thereof, as a gender-specific reason for granting asylum. We should not hide behind a possible review of the Convention of Vienna. I would ask those in this House who are still not convinced to watch the videos that are being made of these ‘festive occasions’, as they are sometimes referred to in those countries. It is of fundamental importance that the silence around this taboo subject is broken. That is why socio-cultural programmes in situ, as well as awareness campaigns involving the relevant migrants in Europe must be encouraged. We cannot continue to accept this flagrant violation of human rights and of the dignity of the women and girls involved, under the guise of national customs and traditions. I would like to take the opportunity of saying that, in view of the excellent quality of the next report by Mrs Smet, our group will not be taking the floor: that report equals perfection. By way of conclusion, I would like to congratulate Mrs Valenciano once again on the work she has done.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report which has been presented here today is fundamental, and I hope it will receive Members’ attention. tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria have become real obstacles to the development of the poorest countries and every day we see shocking examples of this. A Commission initiative which is inclined to allocate only EUR 300 million to combat these diseases is therefore welcome, albeit somewhat feeble. I shall therefore ask the Commission and the Council to take this matter seriously and to act more consistently. They need to be more serious when they promise that the European Union’s contribution to the world fund to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria will come from additional resources, while we can see today that this money comes from existing budget lines, and they need to be more consistent when they confirm, in this House, the importance of public health services for the developing countries, while in the negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services they claim that the liberalisation and privatisation of services will be a good thing for those same countries. They also need to be more consistent by ensuring that this proposed regulation also provides for the supply of medicines at affordable prices. Remember that the WTO negotiations have still not enabled us to achieve this result in the case of those countries which do not have the capacity to produce medicines themselves. We might well, therefore, ask ourselves sometimes whether the Commissioners ever talk to one another.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report we are discussing here does not, in itself, entail any major changes. Most of the proposed amendments are of a purely technical nature. It is nonetheless worth emphasising that, each time we make this type of decision, it is good from a broad environmental perspective and it is beneficial because it creates better prior conditions for exploiting the possibilities of the internal market. Very large quantities of dangerous goods are transported around the EU, both on roads and railways and by sea. This makes it necessary to have proper rules governing transport of this kind. In area after area, we are now obtaining common minimum regulations for the Member States. This is extraordinarily positive, and there is cause to thank the rapporteur, Mr Koch, for the work he has put in on this issue. This is also important where the prerequisites for the internal market are concerned. If we are to get a common transport market genuinely up and running, it is important that we should not only have regulations but that these regulations should also, as far as possible, apply to every country. I should like to conclude by commenting on a third matter which is also of significance, namely an amendment tabled by Member of Parliament, Mr Ari Vatanen. In many ways, the prerequisites differ from one Member State to another. By approving this amendment, we take account of the fact that it can be very cold in the northern parts of the European Union. This makes it necessary to also take account of the ways in which materials and packaging are affected by cold of this kind. It is good that, in establishing the present regulations, we can also be flexible. I hope that the Commission is able to accept the present amendment.

Political group: PPE-DE