GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, when we talk of discharge, there is a poor spirit prevailing among the groups. I would like to show my support for Mrs Stauner, despite the fact that the Social Democrats criticise her. This may be based on the fact that during the Fléchard case, when Delors was the President of the Commission, the Head of his Private Office was the present Commissioner Lamy. Under no circumstances can we accept that certain documents, which would shed some light on the use of funds, have vanished. I would also like to support Mr Kuhne in the assessments he makes in his report, which, for its part, was criticised by members of the European People’s Party and . In my opinion, parliamentary rapporteurs have to speak and write what they think about the use of parliamentary funds, in which case the interests of no group can put up a barrier. Our group agrees with the conclusion that discharge may on this occasion be granted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I hope that my good friend Thomas Mann has forgiven me for not voting for the report in committee, and indeed that he will forgive me again, as he knows I will not be supporting it in the plenary. There are many points that I welcome in his report; the recognition of the need to deliver the Lisbon conclusions, the encouragement and support for SMEs and the need to improve employment of disadvantaged groups in society. But I do not accept the basic thrust of the report that one of the solutions is to strengthen the roles of the social partners. I am all for social dialogue, but this should be between employees and employers within their companies. The rapporteur confirmed the importance of SMEs as the motor of employment, but SMEs have only a tiny voice within UNICE and most of their employees do not have membership of trade unions. So within the social partners their voice goes virtually unheard, and yet the social partners presume to speak for them. There was an interesting report in the UK press at the weekend about Germany: Chancellor Schröder was apparently finding it increasingly difficult to get acceptance of much-needed labour market reforms because the social partners were blocking them. A German minister was quoted as saying 'when it becomes necessary to drain the swamp, you don't stand around asking the frogs'. With unemployment approaching 5 million in that country, the swamp is getting bigger and the need for change is very clear. So I am all for social justice and social inclusion, but the biggest enemy of both is unemployment. Governments need to do what is necessary to address this. Clinging on to outdated concepts does not help; strengthening the role of the social partners simply leads to more paralysis. If some countries wish to persist in this, it is of course up to them. But please, rapporteur, please, Commissioner, do not inflict such concepts on the rest of us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Amendment No 65, introduced by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, has now been included in the compromise amendment in a somewhat altered form, but it has been included, so that plant and animal genetic resources have received their own title. The Council still has to approve this. Something in the compromise was deferred so we do not have to vote on it now. We therefore withdraw our amendment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Ustica question is one of the darkest legal episodes in not only Italian, but I would say especially, European history. Over the past 19 years, we have seen numerous dramatic turns of events regarding the investigations to establish the truth that has still not emerged which, it appears, is also down to those involved preventing this happening and riding roughshod over the legal rights of the victims’ families and over our basic democratic principles. We do not want to apply a political interpretation or allow anyone to exploit a tragedy which has caused so much suffering. Let us leave it to the magistracy to ascertain the truth which is the right of everyone, not only of the victims’ relatives. In addition to the results obtained recently by the Italian magistracy, I do not know whether, in the future, there will or will not be other scenarios which, in recent years, we have unfortunately become used to owing to the legal events of Ustica. But today, we are faced with a judgement which outlines the hypothesis of the participation of aircraft from different countries during the disaster of 27 June 1980. And so Parliament must make a firm request to the Member States and the United States to cooperate in finding the truth. It is certainly significant for our institution to promote an action which aims to protect... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I just wanted some further clarification. Mr Bolkestein, I am very sorry if you have not been listening very carefully or if the translation was not very precise, but I have not put forward a demand that cloning should be prohibited. Not so. Having kept a critical eye on the way in which the legislation relating to the directive on biotechnological inventions was developing, I am perfectly aware of what this contains. I would merely ask you to be aware of this. What I in fact said is that I should like absolute clarification that these are in fact the contents. That is a quite different statement from the one you attributed to me.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, never was there more need for an explanation of vote, for I made a mistake and voted against the Bedoya report instead of for it. I am therefore using the time available to me to make this statement. Of course I voted for the report. How could I not approve of the Cohesion Fund being used to assist Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland? However, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that it would be appropriate to grant this aid for as long as it takes for the States’ gross domestic product to reach the European Union average in full, for otherwise I can imagine a situation where, as the gross domestic product of each State approaches the average, the relevant Minister for Finance and the Budget says, ‘Put the brakes on or we will lose our European Union aid!’ - Casaca report (A5-0137/2000)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, with reference to the Minutes for the sitting of Thursday 18 November, item 11 “Treaty reforms and the next IGC”. Amendment No 19 is listed with the amendments adopted under item 11. It consists of an addition to paragraph 19 of the draft resolution. Well, this addition has not been included in the version of the text adopted as printed in the “Texts adopted” section of the Minutes distributed this morning. I should, therefore, like to ask you to amend the “Texts adopted”, in accordance with the votes which were taken in yesterday’s sitting.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as we know, Turkey’s relations with the European Union have been the cause of many opinions being expressed lately. It is self-evident that the EU cannot initiate real negotiations for accession to the European Union with a country which does not fulfil the Copenhagen criteria. Respect for human rights and minorities is the basis of European cooperation, and countries which do not understand this are not welcome in the Union. But is the EU for that reason to turn its back on Turkey in as many contexts as possible? There are Members of this Parliament who think so. I do not share that attitude. If we, in the EU, have the opportunity to improve democratic conditions in Turkey, we should seize it. We have such an opportunity now with the recommendation concerning Turkey’s participation in the Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes. At the Conference of Presidents 14 days ago, Mr Prodi attached just such importance to the EU’s working for a situation in which Turkey respects the Copenhagen criteria and said that the EU ought to initiate a closer political dialogue with Turkey. I view the Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes as natural links in this closer political dialogue, a dialogue which will have great importance for the development of democracy in Turkey. In a democratic society, legislation and institutions should naturally be democratic but, in order for them to be so, the citizens of the country concerned must think and act like democrats. That does not come automatically. We can see this in the history of Europe. Contact and exchange with democratic countries, especially between young people, provide the most fertile soil for democracy in countries which do not have real democratic traditions. The Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes increase young students’ opportunities for exchange and for moving between one country and another. They also help raise levels of education. The programmes will further the process of democratisation in Turkey and help ensure that, in time, the country can become an integral part of our partnership. Mr President, all democratic parliamentarians ought to be able to vote for this recommendation.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to thank Mrs Buitenweg and Mr Howitt for the work that they have put into this, which has been both a personal as well as a political commitment. As others have said, this is an aspirational directive about the sort of Europe we want to create. It is directly relevant, for once, to the lives of many people living within the European Union. From my constituency of London where a large portion of the population come from minority ethnic groups and where there is a growing number of children of mixed-race relationships, this is an exceedingly important directive. It is even more important for those areas where people wrongly feel that there is no need for anti-racist or anti-discrimination legislation, because there are no visibly non-white people, but yet they will still vote for parties which espouse racist or anti-asylum seeker policies, because they are afraid of the unknown and the different. I welcome the directive. I am pleased Council feels a sense of urgency about it. I assume this will be reflected in their willingness to take on board what Parliament is saying. We have to acknowledge that in this House we regularly call upon other countries and governments to recognise the rights of ethnic minorities and to practice policies of universal human rights. We have to demand the highest standards of ourselves. It will not be easy to implement this directive and I am not referring to the votes. It requires us to call into question the workings of all our institutions, including longstanding well-respected ones, and our own practices. That will not be easy or painless. In the UK we are gradually admitting to the institutional racism we practice and starting to examine the core values of our institutions. That cannot be done unless the individuals within them examine their own beliefs and actions. That is why the amendments about training, monitoring and implementation are so important in this directive. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, adopting a directive does not necessarily mean that reality is as we would wish it. We have a good example of this here. According to the Commission’s assessment, the situation regarding the health and safety of pregnant women looks fine, but that is certainly only on paper, for is that also the way it looks in reality? I am not so sure. The pace in the labour market is more hectic than ever. Great efficiency is demanded, and women are supposed to work as if they were not pregnant, even if they are. It is stressful, and it is unhealthy both for the pregnant woman and the foetus. We know this, because investigations have proven this to be the case. The European Parliament and ourselves as representatives of the people are entitled to know whether the legislation we adopt also actually works in practice. I think we have an example here of the Commission’s doing all too little in this area. The message from Parliament to the Commission should therefore be that the work which has been done is not good enough. It needs to be re-done. We must know whether the legislation is working. The Commission’s purely legal analyses now already show that there is a need for further protection. I think there is a greater need to discover what suitable protection consists in, and there should be stricter rules governing dismissal during pregnancy. The Commission must go back to the drawing board, set to work again and table the necessary proposals. The European social model is characterised by the fact that we have a high level of protection. This should be an area – and this remark is aimed at the which has adopted a very different view – in which the EU should have a big influence. It should not be left to the individual Member States. Women’s participation in the labour market is a prerequisite of our achieving the ambitious goals we have set ourselves regarding employment and the modernisation of the European social model. Modernisation and efforts in this area are therefore important. They cannot be left to the Member States. Europe as a whole needs to attend to these issues.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will be endorsing Mr Deva's report and we also want to congratulate him. In fact, we are convinced that a huge number of people in this hemisphere will be supportive of this report, but I fear that many will lose all interest when the welfare of their own electorate is put at risk. This is currently what we see happening at the Johannesburg Summit. This hypocrisy must stop. Economic globalisation is being imposed by the rich North and it is wreaking havoc in countries with weak economies, great social needs and weak democratic structures. We ask poor countries to open up their borders to our products, without giving them the opportunity to strengthen their economic structures first, as we did ourselves at the time when our economies first started to thrive. If we are serious about the fight against poverty, concrete action of the sort requested by many here today is what is required. We must then open up our own borders, pay fair prices for products from the developing world and guarantee the producers a reasonable income. We must then abolish all subsidies for our own products if they lead to unfair competition with products from developing countries and to the demoralisation of the local producers who are responsible for food safety in their own country. We must then impose on our multinationals a code of conduct which protects weak economies, governments and peoples against arbitrariness and exploitation. Their great power brings with it commensurate responsibility for the world. I am ashamed when I observe how privatisation makes entire peoples, entire countries or regions, dependent for their income on executive boards that only take account of the interests of their own shareholders. What means does a country such as Zambia, for example, possess whereby it can exert pressure on the owners of their copper mines, such as Anglo American? Countries that are dependent on a product, such as petroleum, diamonds, wood or sugar cane often have no defence at all against multinationals that determine the prices and regulate the market. It is a matter of power relations. It is therefore first and foremost our problem. We should, however, meanwhile display solidarity, and the rich north must realise that solidarity and the fight against poverty are a form of peacekeeping.

Political group: Verts-ALE
First of all, I should like to say to the President-in-Office of the Council that King Ferdinand of Aragón was not a Spanish king, because Spain did not exist at that time; he was a king of Aragón. Secondly, I want to point out to him that Ireland’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Nice and Denmark’s reluctance in the past are proof that the small Member States are afraid that the large States – the superstates – may impose their own criteria and interests on them. I should therefore like to ask him if the best solution for the smaller States’ fears might not be to grant the European Parliament full legislative competence in all Community and European Union matters, without exception, and to demand the presence of the governments of the historical nations, federal states and constitutional regions in the Councils of Ministers, providing a more balanced position for the Council’s decisions, which would not be so centralising but rather more balanced and better distributed from a territorial point of view.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I was particularly disappointed by the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit on the issues of safety at sea. What do the conclusions say? The European Council merely expresses regret and its grave concern at the consequences of the sinking of the Prestige and assures Galicia of its support. These statements are very revealing. Where are the concrete measures? Why do we still feel that the ministers are stalling? I would like to express my anger, as you did, Commissioner, as well as my extreme concern regarding the fact that no genuinely practical decisions have been taken. The Council reiterated its conclusions of December 2000 regarding the measures to take with regard to the Erika. How much progress has been made in implementing these measures? What is happening with port controls? What is being done to ensure the integrity of those who enforce these controls? How far have we come in banning flags of convenience? What is the status of the European list of ports that are likely to receive doomed ships? The Council must deliver an opinion on this as soon as possible. Lastly, what is being done to establish the responsibilities of owners and charterers? What we are waiting for is the Council to give us appropriate answers to these specific questions. How much longer are we going to wait? How many more disasters must happen? On the other hand, I congratulate the Commission on its determination and I pledge the European Parliament’s support. A committee of enquiry, however, will not help, as we already have a legislative package and a committee would be a waste of our time. The political will of the Fifteen Member States is essential. We must work quickly instead of spending more time talking. If the directives adopted by this House had been supported, if the Commission had been supported, we would not be in this situation. Europe could have and should have prevented the Prestige disaster. Ladies and gentlemen, we do need to pass more legislation; what we must do, at long last, is to apply existing legislation. We do not need to have one debate after another. We must take action. Subsidies will not help to repair the environmental damage. The environment must be preserved. What use are our directives on protection? I would also point out that it is more profitable from an economic point of view to anticipate than to repair. Then the disastrous social consequences are so difficult to quantify. Whichever country is affected, how does one assess the distress of fishermen, of those working in the tourism industry and of those citizens who see the oil slick spread further every day?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the French Presidency for its very clear statement. Our priority in criminal matters is combating crime, particularly money laundering. France’s request for a joint Council of Ministers for Justice, Home Affairs, Economic Affairs and Finance devoted to combating money laundering, was therefore extremely interesting. Let me also draw your attention, at this point, to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters to combat organised crime, tabled by the French Presidency in order to remove the obstructions affecting the work of judges. Studies indeed show that impressive amounts of criminal proceeds are amassed by organised crime and reinvested in the world economy. In this way, criminal organisations infiltrate the economic fabric of states and can, if they so wish, destabilise our economies by taking control of commercial companies. Legal and police cooperation is absolutely vital in the fight against organised crime, particularly the trafficking of human beings, the sexual exploitation of children, and money laundering. The Member States must define common penalties and adopt a consistent overall policy. We cannot, however, discuss penalties without discussing crime prevention, and clearly we must implement programmes for educational and information purposes, directed, in particular, at the citizens of our own States but also at the populations of third countries. Criminal organisations can find themselves in a position of strength thanks to the financial operations they carry out in order to launder criminal proceeds. The fight against organised crime is an important undertaking, where we must not fail. The victims expect a great deal of us and this is a challenge we must accept. The Europe we want to build is a Europe of rights. One of these rights is the right to security for all.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, it is not and can never be a choice between employment or the environment. Wealth, growth, enterprise and development need not, and do not, consume the environments of mature societies. On the contrary, it may be observed that there is a clear relationship between the quality of the environment and the wealth of a nation. Throughout the EU and North America recent years have seen dramatic reversals in the pollution of air and water due to technological improvements driven by legislation and societal expectations. In the same period there have been profound increases in the extent and quantity of habitats and natural resources that are formally recognised and protected. The infrastructure, organisation and technology that are needed for a cleaner environment are all achievable because of the wealth and surpluses of the local economies. Significant environmental pollution of air and water and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources have become characteristic of the early stages of developing industrial economies, as they were once with us. Environmental protection requires surpluses, education and vision together with institutional maturity and stability. A strong lobby in favour of environmental protection is a good and necessary part of any mature democratic society. We must be committed to ensuring the widest range of opinions and values, and that they are nurtured, expressed and considered because debate can only increase knowledge and improve the quality of decisions. Likewise, environmental orthodoxies must be constantly scrutinised and re-evaluated to ensure that the protection required is proportionate and effective. Environmental scaremongering hampers open debate by inflating a stateable risk, for example the presence of a toxin, so that it becomes an inaccurately perceived threat, for example by failing to acknowledge that the quantity of the toxin falls significantly below any threatening dose. I believe that great sensitivity, tolerance and compassion must be employed whenever it is proposed to employ the environmental standards of a developed economy to the economies and environments of emerging economies. The EU’s history has shown that localised overloading of environmental carrying capacity can be a temporary phase of an emerging economy. We need to acknowledge ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE