GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, it goes without saying that human cloning which seeks to reproduce a human being similar to another with the sole purpose of improving it must be clearly prohibited. This has always been this Parliament’s position and I think it is useful to restate this. Today, however, we are discussing the use of cloning techniques for therapeutic purposes and this has many implications. These implications are, in themselves, medical. We must make the distinction between therapeutic cloning, which must be clearly differentiated from reproductive cloning. Cell therapy today represents great hope for many patients suffering from genetic or degenerative illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and cancer. There are also ethical and philosophical implications. What status does the embryo have? In order to answer this question, we might refer to the many debates that we have had on abortion or on in-vitro fertilisation. What is the status of unwanted embryos, produced by in-vitro fertilisation and condemned to be destroyed? Could they not provide new life? There are economic and social implications. This debate concerns the whole of society. What is the American or Japanese point of view on these issues? Europe must take a global view and take account of the potential for research offered by therapeutic cloning. There must be an in-depth debate. You have called for one and we agree. Perhaps it would be useful to define in advance what is prohibited and to produce a strict framework for acceptable practice. Safeguards are crucial. These issues are viewed differently from one country to another, according to their culture. This is why the European Union’s action in this field must be guided by major fundamental principles alone. These principles exist and are: respect for the person, respect for life and for freedom but also for progress that will benefit everyone. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report by our fellow Member, Mr van Velzen, marks the start of a re-examination of the current regulatory framework for communications. It is a matter, here, of the European Commission providing the European Union with a world class communication infrastructure with the best possible quality/price offer, if not the lowest possible prices. Of course, no one can disagree with this objective, and I am in favour of it myself. As for the means of achieving it, however, this is a very different matter and, personally speaking, I refuse to validate the rapporteur’s excessively liberal alternatives which go beyond the text presented by the Commission, which, however, is intended to promote the competitive European single market. Let me add four points, which I consider are important, to this debate. Firstly, regarding the principle of competition, I could never accept this being considered an end in itself. Secondly, regarding monitoring, I am not in favour of subjecting national regulatory authorities to outside supervision. Thirdly, regarding the allocation of the frequencies necessary for UMTS licences, I think this must remain within the remit of the Member States. Fourth and finally, regarding the universal service, I am in favour of quickly implementing a review mechanism which is transparent, proportional and non-discriminatory, and I endorse the request to place Internet access within the scope of the universal service. In conclusion, while thanking our rapporteur for his work, I incline more towards the Commission’s view on this case than the rapporteur’s, some of whose liberal, or even ultraliberal ideas I find rather disturbing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the directive drawn up by the Commission contains an obvious bias. It is concerned with using market valuation to encourage supplementary pensions. Although the report by Mr Karas corrects this bias in places, it also makes it worse in others. We are faced with a reference model which is primarily that of the industry of supplementary pensions in place in Great Britain and other countries. Yet, in some countries, these organisations do not or only occasionally enter the financial market; in other countries workers are given cast iron guarantees, but the directive obviously does not aim to do this. In particular, it is not concerned with the coherence of national pension systems based on the principles of solidarity, security and universality. That is why we tabled amendments on two aspects. The first, on the one hand, relates to guarantees for the people concerned, and the second, on the other hand, to public supervision and prudential actions. We believe that this text is unacceptable unless it is subject to considerable amendment. First of all, we must improve the guarantees given to the people. The directive includes risks of discrimination and lapses in solidarity. Membership of a supplementary scheme is not compulsory, which explains the considerable inequalities. There is no provision for inter-sectoral mutualisations. The quality of benefits will suffer if the population falls. Continuity of membership cannot be guaranteed if mobile workers change jobs or sector. The definition of rights does not mandatorily include biometric risks. The guarantees of actual benefits are not organised. And we are aware of the risks taken by those who join fixed contribution schemes, pointed out, moreover, by many well-respected macro economists. We are proposing amendments on all these points, as well as on the second issue giving us cause for concern which is the need to improve social and prudential supervision. The Commission is offering insurers the choice of opting for occupational pension schemes. The Karas report strengthens this provision by casting aside government authorisation. This opens the door to competition and gives rise to two risks: the first is that solidarity work may be abused and that prudential systems that have been imposed on insurers will be weakened. Mr Karas incorporated our amendment seeking to establish the principle of interactive management, but that will only have any real bearing if the institutions involved are not treated like standard financial investors throughout the directive. The prudential framework laid down by the Commission is vague and the report imposes the country of origin principle, which we find unacceptable, since the destination Member State must, of course, also retain the possibility of establishing coherence with internal social law. Lastly, prior tax harmonisation is still not included in these texts, which means we are once again opening the way to fiscal dumping. Ladies and gentlemen, we are today faced with a key test on the way that the European Parliament perceives its responsibilities in the area of social protection.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I have a very small question for the Commissioner about the expression he came up with, which I found quite remarkable and highly amusing. I refer to the ‘proactive snapshot’. Is this by any chance the Commission’s special contribution to the development of the new technologies?

Political group: PSE
We wish to give notice that we have voted against Mr Collins’s report, not because we are opposed to providing information to customers or because we consider these issues to be unimportant but because we consider that these are issues which ought not to be discussed in the European Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s proposal for a directive and the report adopted by the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. However, we need amendments that include social and environmental requirements and equal treatment requirements in procedures. The amendments I have tabled seek to strengthen the role of awarding authorities in monitoring the quality of the tenderers and I would stress the importance of assessing the environmental impact of public and private projects. I would also stress the need to exclude from award procedures people condemned for crimes such as money laundering, fraud and racketeering. I want to emphasise this in this House too, for I am sad to say that my country, Italy, is still troubled by the Mafia and, contrary to what the Italian cabinet minister, Mr Lunardi, said, complicity with the Mafia is totally unacceptable.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Commissioner, for your reply. I really do hope that you will keep an eye on this. It is a very, very serious matter. It raises questions of transparency and questions of control because, as you can see, the committee of the Council of Europe has been given false information. I hope that neither you nor the European Commission will be given false information. I should like to put the following supplementary question to you: quite apart from anything else, when it comes in these cases to the right to visit foreign nationals, especially immigrants, wherever they are being held, and it is often in unofficial detention centres, can we guarantee or can we call on or persuade the Greek authorities to make visiting rights normal practice, at least for non-governmental organisations? Then at least we could resolve the problems which have already been raised as a result of these accusations, accusations which make me personally cringe with shame, both on my own account and as a Greek citizen.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this proposal for an action programme in public health is greatly welcomed by this Parliament. Health is an issue which opinion poll after opinion poll shows is the number one priority for our citizens across the European Union. This issue matters to ordinary people: people understand when you talk about health. As we discuss this report this evening we should never forget this. We often talk about getting closer to citizens and, with an appalling turnout across the Union at the last European elections, we should never forget what is important to our citizens. As we all know, Article 152 gives public health greater importance than ever before, so that health has to be taken into consideration in all European Union policy areas. With this programme we can directly add value to the lives of European Union citizens. By taking a horizontal approach to public health, we can make the best use of limited resources. With a rapid reaction unit to tackle communicable disease we can act much more effectively. With health impact assessments we can detect what works and what does not. With more health information for our citizens, quality of life will surely improve. Although I support much of what the rapporteur proposes, I still have concern over the issue of the centre. I fear that this issue could delay the whole programme because of the legal questions surrounding the proposal. In addition, I also fear that such a centre would take away much of the budget, leaving very little for the work which actually connects effectively with our citizens. In conclusion, health connects with the citizen. We must guarantee that this proposal, which will last for the next five years, is effective. We must deliver on health and well-being. After all, colleagues, the European elections are not far away.

Political group: PSE
The vote on the ratification of the Commission is not a vote of approval for the Commission’s programme, since Parliament will be consulted on this at the end of the year. What we have to do today is to assess whether the Commissioners-designate are up to the task of fulfilling their assignments competently and with due seriousness. There is nothing in what we have learnt during the Commissioners’ hearings to justify, at this stage, a veto on any one of them in particular. Let us say that they can enjoy the benefit of the doubt at this early stage. The fact remains that, in his speech to the European Parliament, Romano Prodi made statements which can only disappoint and worry those who are waiting for rapid and bold responses from the European Union in order to re-align Europe to be at the service of people and humanity rather than of finance and of the great God, money, for Europe to put itself forward as an alternative to world-wide liberalisation. Mr Prodi’s silence on the subject of the need to defend the European Social Model, his irritating reticence, his frequent omissions on the subject of a European policy to promote employment and his tentative generalities on institutional change, give us rather more than reservations. This is why in the vote on the nomination of Mr Prodi, I voted against. In anticipation of the essential reorientation of the political paths of the Commission and of the debate on the action to be taken, a vote in favour today must be interpreted as a choice not to multiply crises, blockages, in our institutions, and as a refusal to look for individual scapegoats when it is the orientation of Europe in terms of politics and civilisation which is in question. This vote is, to some extent, purely administrative. My vote is not therefore a challenge to the Commissioners-designate. Nor is it a vote of confidence. I expect the new Commission to earn this confidence. The Commission must be aware that there are many of us who will not hesitate to penalise it if its actions should prove to be as disappointing as its current political performance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by expressing my special thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Manders, who, as we have seen him do so often in the past, has done an outstanding job of defending the environmental liability directive in the conciliation procedure, and so, this evening, let me thank him for that and also for the good personal cooperation. This House has been working on the environmental liability directive for a long time, and it has been the subject of major and lively debate. Many of its critics were already sceptical that the directive could be adopted before the elections or enlargement. I am all the more glad, as rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party , that tomorrow’s vote will make it possible for the directive to become a reality – and I hope that we will, tomorrow, adopt what the conciliation procedure has produced. This is a great day for environmental protection in the European Union. This directive will, for the first time, introduce compensation for damage to protected species and habitats – what is termed purely environmental damage. Moreover, there will, for the first time, be one system of liability for the whole Community, doing away with liability loopholes whose closure was long overdue and thereby benefiting the environment, so my group very definitely welcomes the outcome of the conciliation procedure. My group does, though, also see it as important that the conciliation procedure has produced a proportionate result, for the fact is – to use an adage quoted in the first-reading debate by Lord Inglewood, who will speak later – that the better is the enemy of the good. Let me pick out one point that was at the heart of the debate until very recently, and which can be taken as representative of the directive’s many crucial issues: is there, or is there not, a mandatory financial security regime? My group has always rejected compulsory insurance of this kind. There are still simply insufficient reference data for a system of this sort. The purely environmental damage to which I referred at the outset cannot at present be calculated. Together with the Council and the Commission, the Conciliation Committee addressed these misgivings, with the result that insurance will not, at first, be mandatory. Instead, the Commission is urged to submit an evaluation report six years after the directive’s entry into force, and then decide on any new approaches that are appropriate. I see this as the right way ahead. Perhaps I may conclude by saying this on behalf of my group: let us join together in adopting what has come out of the conciliation procedure and thereby improve the protection of the environment in the European Union in the long term.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as everyone knows, the Portuguese Prime Minister signed the letter from the European heads of state and government because he believes it is crucial to ensure that Iraq disarms and complies with Resolution 1441. The Portuguese Members of the European People’s Party unreservedly support this view because this is a clear position underpinned by the political tradition of the European democracies, based on the transatlantic alliance with the democracy represented by the US and also, it should be remembered, by Canada, Australia and many other democratic countries in the world. It comes as no surprise that today this approach has the support of the overwhelming majority of European countries, within the European Union, amongst those who will be joining it in the forthcoming round of enlargement, and also amongst other countries on the continent. Nevertheless, recent events that have led to a crisis in NATO and to the danger of a veto in the Security Council by Member States of the Union pose a serious risk to the unity of Europe. What we are seeing is that there can be no common foreign policy based on anti-American prejudice and on complacency towards the threat from dictators who present a danger to world peace, such as Saddam Hussein. We should, therefore, bear in mind some aspects that should not be forgotten: - firstly, Europe does not have strategic defence capacity against the new forms of international terrorism that are bound up with the States that support them; - secondly, the only strategic defence body of which Europeans countries are members is NATO. If this body goes into crisis, it is Europe that will suffer most at the hands of its enemies, more than the United States, for example, because Europe cannot defend itself. The crisis in NATO will make any common defence policy for the European Union impossible; - thirdly, for the enlargement countries, with their recent experience of totalitarian regimes, security concerns are vital. Provoking a crisis in NATO will be profoundly damaging to these countries and will cause them to have confidence only in bilateral strategic alliances with the United States, outside the framework of the European Union and of NATO. It would be extremely bad if these countries’ freedom to take political decisions suffered because they do not agree with some, and I repeat some, countries of the European Union. Lastly, the effect of a crisis in NATO will isolate the Europeans, and will reinforce the United States’ tendency to act unilaterally. If the United States and its allies, including the majority of European countries, were to embark on military action in order to ensure compliance with Resolution 1441 without the explicit support of the European Union and with NATO in deadlock, the damage caused to European alliances will be very difficult to resolve. This is my request to the Council and the Commission; please use the little time available to you to prevent action being taken to force Iraq to comply with the Resolution without there being unity amongst the countries of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Bonn Conference was held several days before the WTO Conference in Seattle. The frantic liberalisation of trade orchestrated by the WTO and the major industrialised countries is in total contradiction to the policies needed to protect the environment. It is not therefore surprising that, as noted by the motion for a resolution, the Member States of the European Union have not adopted the measures needed to meet their Kyoto undertakings while, at the same time, systematic deregulation is underway in Europe. The European Union must sort out its own problems first. Although we have regulations on local atmospheric pollutants or even products depleting the ozone layer, there is no regulation aimed at limiting emissions of carbon dioxide. The opening of rail freight to competition which has just occurred goes against the European development policy needed for this means of transport. - GMO (B5-0313/1999)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Commissioner, this morning President Prodi, among others, stressed that the Balkans are testing our ability to act effectively, the very credibility of the European Union is on trial, and the gap between words and deeds must finally be closed. Commissioner, do you really think that the facts we have about high infant mortality in Kosovo – the highest in Europe – and more generally the picture of human misery and destruction that prevails in Kosovo, are not already damaging our credibility and casting doubt on our ability to live up to our promises? Besides, Commissioner, is so-called humanitarian military intervention justified by the present picture of human destruction in Kosovo? Do you think that so much inaction is excusable when, on the continent of Europe itself, the right to life is at risk?

Political group: PSE
President, it is a great pity indeed that Commissioner Barnier has been unable to be present here this morning, because this is a matter within his brief which is causing great concern not only in Scotland and Wales but in other parts of the Union. It is a matter of real concern because it is made to appear as though a scheme which is supposed to provide specific help really ends up just been a conjuring trick between the Commission and the national governments in which extra money is supposed to be coming in, but we are told afterwards it makes no difference whether extra money went into the particular region as long as it went into the country as a whole. That is simply unacceptable. We are further told, however, that all is well, because the additionality rules in the regulation are being carried through properly. Yet the Court of Auditors, in the very report that we have been talking about, says the following things: the difficulties encountered are caused by the limited development of the principle in terms of concepts and methodology and the joint failure to find appropriate and effective procedures for verifying it. And then two paragraphs later, the identification of the structural assistance interventions in the eligible regions is unreliable, and this leads to the inclusion of a large number of estimates and hypotheses which are difficult to verify. ‘Difficult’ indeed, Sir. No wonder that this causes disquiet throughout the Community and let us ask the Commission to give it its full attention.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, I would like to start on a completely personal note by thanking Mrs Lindh for the job she and Mr Solana and Commissioner Patten have done in Macedonia. As a war baby, I am very conscious of the fact that peace is not celebrated with parades and that the arduous everyday work of maintaining peace does not gain huge headlines. War is better in a media society. However, I would like to thank Mrs Lindh for her excellent work so far. The main theme of Gothenburg will be sustainable development, and in this context the Kyoto Protocol will be brought up. President Bush is coming to Gothenburg. Should those in power in Europe, including myself, not “put their own house in order” first? Within the EU, we subsidise energy systems which produce the highest levels of carbon dioxide. Should we not first, or perhaps at the same time, do something about this? It is easier to negotiate once one has “put ones own house in order”. The other major environmental problem in Europe is traffic. There is also an EU project to create a good, environmentally friendly infrastructure in Europe. The third and perhaps one of our greatest environmental problems is the common agricultural policy. We are putting a little over EUR 40 billion into this area. Around 5 billion of that will go into preserving cultural heritage and biodiversity, the rest is highly counterproductive from the point of view of the environment, so let us “put our own house in order” as we move forward.

Political group: ELDR