GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The proposal for a directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation before us today is a response to a demand long expressed by the European Parliament, and our group in particular. It is actually one of three parts of a package of measures on combating discrimination based on the new Article 13, introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and includes a Community action programme. These texts should, then, fill a glaring gap in the construction of Europe: recognition of the real needs of people excluded or marginalised in our societies because of disability, age, or membership of a minority. The texts therefore represent some of the first steps towards the people’s Europe that we have wanted for so long. So, I enthusiastically support this proposal for a directive and the very positive amendments proposed by our rapporteur to improve its effectiveness. In so doing, I wish to stress the importance of the amendments to improve the protection of people with disabilities by clarifying the terms ‘reasonable accommodation’ of the workplace and ‘undue hardship’ for the employer, and those toughening the ban on discrimination against older people who freely choose to go on working – 63% of Europeans aged 55-64 do not work – and those strengthening the vital autonomy of management and the unions as well as the crucial role of social dialogue in actually implementing equal treatment in businesses. In parallel, the amendment extending the exception to the principle of non-discrimination to the wider ‘social’ activities of religious organisations, where the discrimination is solely based on religious conviction and on no other grounds, is a reinforcement of the specific nature and original contribution of these structures as compared with public or private services. On the other hand, the amendments providing for penalties against companies infringing the principle of equal treatment by excluding them from public contracts seem to me both poorly adapted to the purpose and subject to divergent interpretation. In addition, they open the door to distortions in competition between businesses in different European Union countries. That is why I wish to express reservations on that point, while voting in favour of the text as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to return to a matter which I am recorded as having raised in yesterday's minutes. Question Time to the Commission yesterday was truncated to a single hour, during which only five questions were answered. One of the most important aspects of the structure of the Union is the real accountability of Commissioners before this Parliament, which must relate to questions of relative detail that can be raised at Question Time, not just to issues of general policy. It will be disastrous for the Union if we carry on this practice of truncating Question Time and having very few questions dealt with properly. One possibility suggested to me is that we might at least contemplate having a weekly Question Time in Brussels, as well as in Strasbourg, so as to provide for thorough questioning of the Commission on points which our constituents wish us to raise with them. I am glad to see Mr Provan here today, because this kind of question falls within his remit as a Member of Parliament's Bureau. I put it to Members that it is vital that we question the Commission effectively. We are not doing this at the moment. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I strongly support this excellent report by my Labour colleague, Simon Murphy. It offers yet further proof of Labour's commitment to create an environment across Europe where entrepreneurs and businesses can flourish. Late payment regularly throttles many viable businesses, especially small businesses. Many, through no fault of their own, are tragically forced into receivership as a result. Entrepreneurs are needlessly ruined, jobs are lost, needlessly lost, economic vibrancy is needlessly deadened. This measure, however, will help allow small businesses to fight back. Creditors will be entitled to charge a statutory interest rate on their debts, encouraging debtors to pay early. Furthermore, if debts are not repaid, creditors will also be able to recoup their costs for collecting bad debts. By introducing greater certainty in business transactions Europe-wide, small businesses will feel more confident to trade not just across Britain but also right across the European Single Market. Membership of the Single Market, the largest trading bloc in the world, is crucial for jobs in the north-west. Nearly 40% of small and medium sized enterprises in the region have trading links with other EU Member States. As a part of the EU Single Market, they have access to over 370m potential customers – over 6 times more than in Britain alone. In a few years time, following the enlargement of the European Union, they will have access to a potential 500m customers – as big as the American and Japanese markets put together. The Labour Government is determined to make the Single Market work for British business. By giving UK businesses the confidence to reach into these markets, this measure will help in this task and increase trade, growth and employment across both the north-west and all of Britain. - Papayannakis report (A5-0101/1999)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted for the motion because I was against it, as did the majority of the other Members of the European Parliament. 'Wolf! Wolf!' cried a shepherd boy who wanted to play a trick on his friends. In fact, his cry 'Wolf! Wolf!' summoned all the villagers, who asked, 'Where is the wolf?' To which the shepherd boy replied 'Ha ha! It's a joke. There isn't a wolf!' Three days later, he shouted again: 'Wolf! Wolf!' All the villagers arrived asking: 'Where is the wolf?' 'Ha ha ha! It's a joke. There isn't a wolf!' A week later, a wolf really came and started to tear the sheep to pieces. 'Wolf! Wolf!', cried the shepherd boy, but nobody came from the village to help. And the wolf ate all the sheep. I have told you this story because we have to realise that we must do something practical in our immigration policy, not just talk and cry 'Wolf!'.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as European Parliament observers, my colleague Georg Jarzembowski and I were able to follow the presidential elections in Taiwan on 18 March on the spot, ‘live’ as it were. On the basis of numerous conversations with various parties and visits to the polling stations, we satisfied ourselves that the election was free and democratic. We had the impression that the elections in Taiwan were marked by a mature awareness of democracy amongst the population. This was evidenced both by the high turnout, which, as compared with the presidential elections, had risen by 6% to 82%, and by the result itself. After a very long period of supremacy by the party in government up to that point – a period lasting over 50 years – the political scene has been revitalised. The opposition candidate was elected the new President and, for the first time in Taiwan’s history, a woman was elected Vice-President. These results alone mark a historical turning point. The people of Taiwan viewed any attempts by outsiders to influence them with enormous sensitivity. The result was primarily an expression of the internal policy debate, and the newly elected President, Mr Chen Shui-bian, based his election campaign almost entirely on internal issues, and the high-profile, aggressive and provocative noises emerging from the People’s Republic of China, from a variety of sources, had, if anything, the opposite of the desired effect. Nevertheless, everyone involved was aware of the circumstances. Chen Shui-bian was also elected because the previously governing Kuomintang party was split by the presence of two candidates. However, the Kuomintang still has a majority in the Taiwanese Parliament. Chen Shui-bian is very well aware that a radical pro-independence policy would have been condemned to failure. The region needs security and stability. The only way to achieve reconciliation and lasting peace is through positive cooperation and a constructive dialogue between mainland China and Taiwan. Healthy relations are also needed for economic development. We therefore welcome the fact that both sides in this conflict are seeking a peaceful solution. In this respect we welcome Chen Shui-bian’s initiative to commence bilateral talks, and we also welcome the cooperative approach announced by the People’s Republic of China. The PRC is officially endeavouring to reach a peaceful solution, subject, of course, to Taiwan renouncing its efforts towards independence. Our resolution is intended to further democracy in Taiwan, but the People’s Republic of China is taking it as an affront. That is why I seriously ask myself whether we should not perhaps adopt a different approach, based on reconciliation instead of polarisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
I cannot understand your reply. According to the information at my disposal, scientific studies consider northern hake to be a single stock. I therefore have no idea as to the source of the data differentiating between the Bay of Biscay and elsewhere with regard to the situation or the reduction in stock. Secondly, I should like to suggest to the President-in-Office of the Council that the Council should have taken socio-economic and commercial factors into account. As far as possible, it should have safeguarded the viability of hake fishing, insisting on strict compliance with the technical measures for fisheries management which the common fisheries policy has been unable to implement in recent years, despite the constant warnings issued by the bodies from which the scientific management council is drawn.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking Gérard Caudron for his difficult work. As we might say in German, it is easier to guard a sack of fleas than draw together the different interests in this House, and I would therefore like to express my sincere thanks for his successful efforts in this regard. With the research framework programme, we want to make a contribution to enhancing the competitiveness of European industry. We want to underpin and support our European policies through research. However, we also want to bring research closer to citizens. I am pleased, therefore, that in this latter area, we have been able to make some improvement to the Commission's proposal through three important steps. As part of this process, it is important, in my view, for us to ensure that research complies with the principle of sustainable development as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Gothenburg Council Conclusions. We must bring ecological criteria into line with social and economic criteria, and so it is only right and proper that research should be subject to this principle too. This is reflected in a number of the amendments relating to energy and sustainable transport. I also think it is important, and necessary, to interconnect research and society, firstly by examining every research project to determine the effect of research on society: in other words, by carrying out technology impact assessments, and secondly, by actively including citizens in the research dialogue and strengthening this dialogue between research and society. It is only right and proper, in my view, for us to increase the available resources in this area. The third building block to bring research closer to citizens is undoubtedly to enhance the opportunities available to SMEs, universities and small research institutions for participation in this process, as they, of course, offer great potential for innovation, and many people, many Europeans, are involved. We must therefore ensure that the processes are simple, transparent and speedy, and above all, that those who are rejected also receive a response which signals that researchers are taken seriously. If we are able to realise these three dimensions: sustainability, dialogue between research and society, and an effective approach to SMEs, then, I am sure, research will find a place not only in the minds of Europeans, but also in their hearts. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Services of general interest, the purpose of which should be to provide the best possible services to the entire public, are being handed over to private, profit-making companies which trade in social commodities purely on a maximum profit basis within the so-called free market economy. This is the objective of the ΕU, to step up the liberalisation which it started in the transport, electricity, natural gas, postal and water sectors. The only justification for this anti-grass roots approach is the contention that it will improve the competitiveness of the economy. It completely overlooks the quality of these services and the fact that, once they have been liberalised, one section of the population will be denied access to these services because it will be unable to afford the prices charged by the companies which agree to manage them. The basic aim of liberalisation is to hand these services over to the private sector for speculative purposes. This will have adverse repercussions on the workers, in the form of the increased prices for the services provided and, more importantly, the waves of redundancies and flexible types of employment which always replace traditional forms of employment in the wake of privatisation. Our experience of market liberalisation and privatisation in Europe and other countries has shown us that the quality of services falls, prices rise and jobs are cut back drastically, as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs admits in its opinion. In Greece, for example, the price per unit for local and long distance calls has risen over tenfold and profits have risen a hundredfold since Greek Telecom and mobile telephony were privatised. And instead of the flourishing of the arts anticipated from the privatisation of radio and television, broadcasting companies are dumbing down and distorting culture, disorientating and misleading the public. Public utilities are not only economically important to each country; they are also strategically important from the point of view of the security and independence of each country, especially in times of economic or other crisis. We oppose all forms of privatisation and contend that privatised companies should be returned to the public sector and improved and modernised so that they can provide cheap, high quality services, serve the working classes and act as a driving force behind the grass-roots economy. That is why we shall be voting against the report. * * * IN THE CHAIR: INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is an important report which Parliament has voted on today. There are many uncertainties surrounding the use of genetically modified organisms, and there is good reason for being very careful. On important points, the Council has wished to introduce risk assessment, together with evaluation of the use of genetically modified organisms. The Directive guarantees a high level of protection. Where most of the points are concerned, I have been able to agree with the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Where other points are concerned, however, other measures can justifiably be demanded. In the case of genes expressing resistance to antibiotics, the Council’s position makes continued research possible under strict conditions based upon environmental considerations and respect for the consumer. Nothing is so enduring as the accidental. I therefore consider it very important to devise general regulations governing liability for environmental damage. Dealing separately with the GMO sector may lead to major differences in the regulations governing liability in different areas. When it comes to investigating the costs, together with the benefit to the public finances, of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment, I have voted in favour of Amendment No 8 in order to guarantee continued discussion of how such an investigation ought to be carried out. I do not, however, believe that investigations of that kind can be carried out annually. The EU ought not, therefore, to become inundated with reports on the matter.

Political group: ELDR
Exactly eight months ago, this House sent a very clear message to the Commission: the adoption of a wholly tariff-based system after a transitional period of six years would inevitably condemn banana producers within the Community and those from the ACP to bankruptcy and misery. Unfortunately, the Commission’s declared obsession with finding a system that is both viable and compatible with the all-powerful WTO has won the day over any other consideration. Let me make this quite clear: I am aware of the importance of this body, but what I, like others, refuse to accept is globalisation! This is a form of globalisation for the richest few and for them alone. This is a form of globalisation that scorns the most basic human rights. In short, this is a form of globalisation unfettered by any democratic regulation. With regard to the banana dossier, I must once again mention the unhappiness of our small producers in Guadeloupe, Martinique and the Canaries, who feel swindled, abandoned and sacrificed at the altar of a macroeconomic rationale that they do not understand. The Commission’s proposal is unacceptable in its current state, as it constitutes an unconditional capitulation to the dictates of the U.S! This capitulation is unworthy of this European project of ours and of the social and environmental model that we claim we want to construct. That is why I voted in favour of the report by Mr Dary, who, by opposing this capitulation, does an honour to our Parliament. - Torres Marques report (A5-0366/2000)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I hope I will be forgiven for moving from matters of life and death to more commercial matters. This House, in its role as legislator, is deeply concerned about intellectual property and the need to protect holders' rights in the interests of consumers and of fair play. It is all the more alarming if the holders of the rights themselves abuse the rights to the disadvantage of consumers. I regret to say that this is what is being done now in Scotland by Diageo, the multinational spirit drinks producer, which produces Cardhu whisky. The supply of Cardhu single malt has run low. However, now Diageo is producing something called Cardhu pure malt whisky. Not all Members of this House may be aware of it, but there is a very big difference between pure malt whisky – which is a blend of various malts – and single malt, which comes from a single malt distillery. It is vital to the health of this Scottish and European industry that consumer trust is maintained and that sharp practice by producers is eliminated as quickly as possible. This industry has often sought and obtained the support of the European authorities. We should insist that they themselves play the game. Mr President, please write to the chief executive and get Diageo to stop this!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, still on the subject of regional policy, transport and tourism, I have to say to you that we are quite worried, not to say disillusioned, by our reading of the draft budget. The problem has been clearly explained: to see the budget lines for essential policies cut so drastically by the Council worries us extremely. I have to say to you that it worries us because it happens all the time. Whatever the decision-making procedures, whatever the reports highlighting the European Union’s development needs, the same thing has happened for years: whenever budget time comes the Council makes the most astounding cuts to its programmes, which are nevertheless among the most important ones for encouraging development in the European Union. Time passes and nothing changes in this. Hence our concern and hence the Commission’s unanimity in seeking to use amendments to get the level of expenditure provided for in the preliminary draft budget reinstated. I will return for a few moments to the issue of the Structural Funds and I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for all the explanations he has given us. We can indeed see that the simplifications made are bearing fruit. We also note a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the management of those funds. In short, we want the European Union’s budget to take account of the reality of expenditure, which will avoid the Commission having to present supplementary draft budgets, which would be damaging to the peaceful implementation of these essential funds.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I fully support the USA in its handling of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. It is fully in the interests of Europe's citizens that the American security forces be allowed to interrogate these suspects. This would not be permissible were they classified as prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention, since POWs are only obliged to divulge their name, rank and number, whereas unlawful combatants – their correct classification, in my view, according to the provisions of Article 4(2) of the Geneva Convention – can be interrogated. I have to say to speakers on the other side of the House that a declaration or non-declaration of war is an irrelevancy under the Geneva Conventions. The US needs to interrogate these individuals as it is an essential part of the worldwide struggle against terrorism. The decision by the US to classify them in this way is, therefore, not vindictive but practical and necessary, but it exposes the inadequacy of the anachronistic international jurisprudence in this area. Furthermore, it is my belief that many of these individuals are so dangerous that they would not have hesitated to attack their own guards. If they became aware that one of their fellow detainees was likely to crack under interrogation, they would have made efforts to kill him as well. The only possible alternative – beyond the physical restraints which were placed upon them, both in transit, when they might well have bitten their way through the avionic cables in order to down the planes, and on land – would be the use of high doses of intramuscular tranquillisers which, although effective, would have carried significant risks to the detainees and would have required medical and nursing personnel to accompany them. There is no evidence that the Americans are treating them cruelly or inhumanely, and we should support them rather than engage in speculative and ill-informed criticism. My concern is twofold: firstly, as regards what will America do with those it does not file charges against who, if returned to their own countries of origin, may face torture and death for reasons of unrelated Islamic militancy; and secondly, with regard to paragraph 5 of the resolution, which suggests a role for the international criminal court, which has yet to get off the ground? Unfortunately, as well-intentioned as this may be, my understanding is that certainly domestic terrorists, rightly or wrongly, are excluded from the Rome Statute provisions, but it may be that international terrorists could fall under its remit. This is not clear at present. I have a number of additional concerns about the ICC, such as command responsibility, which blames military commanders even if they had no knowledge of the crimes committed, and also the fact that amnesties and peace and reconciliation processes would become more difficult to achieve between belligerents. Nevertheless, this whole area of jurisprudence ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we should like to request that the last sentence of Amendment No 2 which reads: 'also calls on the Member States to promote tourism for the elderly’ be incorporated into Paragraph 25, which deals specifically with social tourism, after: 'tourism for organised social groups...'. We think its inclusion there would be both more appropriate and more effective.

Political group: PSE