GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, could I say directly to Commissioner Nielson that I wrote to you on 18 August expressing my concern about the life and the plight of Father Brendan Forde, the Irish priest whose life is currently under threat in the complex political circumstances that pertain in Colombia. Could I add to that the name of one young man born and raised in Ireland, Tristan James Murray, whose mother comes from my part of Ireland in Wexford, and his Colombian colleague, Javier Nova, young environmentalists missing since July. We all have concerns that Plan Colombia might escalate the conflict and increase the influence of the guerrillas out there. Please ensure that aid from the EU, and indeed American aid, is used as it should be used, not to increase the attacks by the militia against the peace communities in the name of trying to take out the guerrillas. Father Forde is staying where he is because he is trying to protect his community. His life has been threatened; he has been given twenty days to get out and the International Red Cross will support all we are saying about it. We have to raise the international profile of all the people, including the communities whose lives are under threat and we trust Commissioner Nielsen you will do all you can for us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Katiforis, ladies and gentlemen, this report and this issue are of particular significance in view of the many questions that are being raised. Previous speakers have already shown you how the rating agencies have gained twofold significance – on the one hand as a result of notorious scandals, and on the other as a result of the consumer credit directive or the development of Basel II. Let us be frank, and admit that every customer of a bank, and certainly anyone taking out a loan, is the subject of some form of rating process. Above all, rating agencies assess companies and countries. These evaluations lead to debates on the level of interest rates, the amount of equity capital and the stock exchange prices; they also have an effect on customers’ confidence in the business and country in question. It also, of course, follows that we have to bear in mind that the whole philosophy behind rating agencies is largely of Anglo-Saxon origin and that there are three large firms in this field that carry out ratings – major and significant ones – in Europe too. That being so, we also have to consider the fact that all these rating agencies possess a quality mark – an American one awarded by the Securities and Exchange Commission. If, then, we are to talk in terms of more competition, we need not only European agencies, but also a quality mark, for some kind of quality mark has the natural effect of building confidence and enhancing the agency’s value in the market. We therefore want to put the case for Europe’s rating agencies to be promoted and for them to respond specifically to the characteristics and needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. We want to advocate the introduction of a European quality mark, or, best of all, a global one, to accompany Basel II, and we want a debate on internal and external rating. We favour freedom of opinion and the agencies’ independence, and we want greater transparency. That is why I regard it as intolerable that there should be no licensing procedure whatever for rating agencies. It may be that starting with financial market supervision, and with equal treatment for internal and external ratings so that agencies can be registered, that is to say, authorised, is a good approach that we should adopt, instead of creating new authorities.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to say, in relation to Amendment No 53, that the English version is the valid text. ‘Parasitic copies’ is therefore the correct wording.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am somewhat amazed. You, Commissioner, have argued that we will, by means of this directive, influence transport policy towards sustainability. I would very much like to remind you what sustainability means. It was specified at Göteborg that sustainability is an equilateral triangle of the economic, the ecological and the social. Let me just ask you a simple question: in what way were you promoting sustainability when, by means of this directive, you are jeopardising safety in ports? It can make for worse damage to the environment and does nothing to improve the protection of it. In what way are you strengthening the social element when you allow self-handling, which means that the ship’s crew, who have been travelling on it for so long, now, in addition, have to load and unload it? Qualifications and the reduction of working time do not come into it. Mr Hatzidakis’ argument that new jobs will be created is crazy. I beg you, if the same jobs are done by people who already have other things to do, that reduces jobs rather than encouraging the creation of additional ones. It also goes against the Lisbon agenda if we want to achieve full employment by 2012, but keep going in the opposite direction. I have to tell you in all honesty, Commissioner, that I really would have expected you to look at these aspects from the right angle. What you said was completely one-sided, and, as you said, it indicates that you want to let liberalisation advance. If that is what you see as your objective, then it is in order for you to just say so. Then it will be perfectly clear that we can never find a common denominator, because, for you, liberalisation means nothing more than cutting costs in the economic sphere. You may well claim that it is about that, but I do not, and nor does my group. Turning to the port workers and the pilots, you have, in the course of the debate we have had – and Mr Jarzembowski knows this too – met some of our expectations, but not others. At the end, after the conciliation process, absolutely none of the people affected are on your side – none whatever! Yesterday, we were again visited by the port workers, whose 21 000 signatures make up an extraordinary amount for this occupation, and you do not even take note of it! That means, I believe, that this directive, rather than promoting safety and social standards and thereby putting competition on a single footing, is achieving the precise opposite. For that reason, we can do no other than reject it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, this debate calls to mind concepts of peace and solidarity upon which the European Union was founded. The principle of solidarity applies not just within the Union but also to the people of less developed countries. The European Union upheld this concept when, in the face of United States obstruction, it took the initiative and authorised the importation and use of generic and low-cost medicines for underprivileged communities. As a rapporteur to Parliament on directives relating to medicines, I have worked on directives concerning the authorisation of the marketing of medicines within the European Union. I am therefore well aware of the issues involved. I understand that it is important to strike a satisfactory balance between research and generic medicines, between data protection and the price of the medicine and between innovation and authorised copying. I do not however wish to revisit these issues today, nor do I wish to delve into the issue raised by a number of countries, namely whether the right to health should take precedence over the right to patent. In certain circumstances, this issue can be resolved quite easily. Do we have the right to let people waste away? Do we have the right to allow people to die when they could be treated? This would amount to failing to help a person in danger. In accordance with the principle of equal access to medicines and therefore to health, I would urge the European Union to use all its influence to support these authorisations. At the same time, the Union should however ensure that a specific framework is created and that the process is completely transparent. I believe it would be helpful for the World Health Organisation to act as arbiter in this, and would like to adduce three reasons for this. Firstly, effective measures should be implemented to prevent the parallel importation into the European Union of generic medicines destined for developing countries. If such controls are not introduced, the people we wish to help will not receive the medicines destined for them. Furthermore, such parallel imports would undermine the quality health system we wish to develop within the European Union. The relevant authority should draw up a permanent register of generic medicines destined for developing countries to ensure the effectiveness of such controls. I hope this list will evolve over time as new diseases appear, in order to increase the efficiency of product distribution and quality control frameworks. As for the quality of these medicines, we know that they are not third-rate products. On the contrary, we know that they are just as effective as other medicines. Making such products available, however, could only be one aspect of curing disease and fighting the epidemics we are trying to curb. Lastly, Commissioner, the provision of local infrastructures, control laboratories and training for professionals is in fact just as important as making these products available. For all these reasons, I think the WHO should take on the essential role of guarantor for the process of making medicines available to all.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, despite the fact that the number of women in education, employment and politics has increased and continues to increase, it is clear that there are still great problems and inequalities in the social sectors under discussion. Those who trust in the idea that, thanks to official equality and the passage of time, self-regulatory mechanisms will work in favour of social balance, are mistaken, because they do not appreciate the fact that, although equality before the law and equality of opportunity are necessary conditions, they are not sufficient in themselves. Women with the necessary abilities often do not make it, but we know many cases of men who attain positions of power without having sufficient merit and they are never called ‘quota men’. Parity democracy, which we have been talking about for many years, is an instrument which is intended, through balanced representation, to put an end to the model of structural power which has kept women out of the decision-making process. It is essential to create administrative structures which promote and monitor gender equality, and it would also be very helpful to resume the work of the European network of experts in the promotion of women in the field of decision-making, which had considerable success in the past. On the other hand – as Mrs Karamanou’s excellent report points out – it is especially important to promote the participation of men and women in all policies at a proportion of a minimum of 40% and a maximum of 60%. In this respect, the systems of alternating men and women on party lists, promoted in certain political parties, have had unquestionable success. So the aim must be the adoption of national electoral regulations which provide for the creation of parity lists. The next Intergovernmental Conference must include amendments to the Treaty in this respect, so that this objective may be fulfilled in all the institutions and policies of the Union. Mr President, Commissioner, fellow women MEPs, if we want to improve our democracy – and that should be our objective here – it is essential that we share responsibilities and power.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is part of the health package put together with the food law legislation, and I salute Mr Schnellhardt for what he has done over many years in this regard. I support him in his urge that we should limit the degree to which the annexes here can be altered by comitology. The devil is in the details. We do not want the disease to be in the details as well. We have cause for concern in all circumstances where food of animal origin is being packaged and identified. The Commissioner knows from my own correspondence with him of the difficulties we have had in the East Midlands with the Denby scandal and others where meat was wrongly identified and sold when it should not have been. The extension of inspection by ancillary staff in the case of red meat causes us special concern. We do not want to see this extended to fattening pigs and calves. The Commissioner said that this is perfectly safe and it has worked very well with white meat. I am not so sure it has, and if he sees the Consumers' Association survey of the conditions in which chicken is being packaged and sold, he will see that there is room for doubt and concern even here. It is not a reflection on the hard work and dedication of the staff who are employed in slaughterhouses. It is only to establish that they are not put under intolerable pressure and that every possible safety means is employed. I personally salute Unison, the trade union, for campaigning on this issue. On this and this alone I believe that we have reason to go beyond the common position for safety's sake.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I voted against this report because the European Union has no competence to legislate on abortion. The European Parliament should therefore not be debating reports that convey the impression that it does, and to do so raises unnecessary fears on the part of many European citizens. The problem is complicated further by the fact that Ireland will soon be holding a second referendum on the Treaty of Nice. Raising the issue of abortion in the European Parliament today gives oxygen to Irish Eurosceptics. They will cite today's vote on this issue as evidence that Europe wants to foist abortion on Ireland against its will and is, therefore, an undemocratic project. While this is patently untrue, today's adoption of this report, coupled with the proposed mid-term reform of the CAP, will now make it extremely difficult to secure ratification of the Treaty of Nice. Regrettably, if this happens, those who supported today's report will have won a Pyrrhic victory and must bear some responsibility if the Irish electorate rejects it again. I call on parliamentary colleagues to cease compiling reports on issues for which we have no competence and instead concentrate on areas where we have codecision powers in framing European law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you have already quite properly expressed the sympathy of this House to the Turkish Government and to the families of those killed and injured in the callous and indiscriminate terrorist attacks that took place in Istanbul on Saturday. These attacks on innocent civilians remind us all of the grave security threat that terrorism poses. We should remember that the Neve Shalom Synagogue was the subject of a horrific attack 17 years ago. The democracies must work closely together to combat terrorism in whatever form it takes and whatever excuses are used by the perpetrators. We must not allow any difference in other areas of policy to undermine our unambiguous solidarity. With reference to the previous speaker's remarks, we should remember that the United States is carrying enormous burdens on behalf of all of us and we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in these difficult times.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines, for her report. It has already been pointed out that this is a very important issue: soil is a vital component for our existence. Regarding coastal erosion, I was rapporteur in this Parliament some time ago on coastal zone management. The issue of land use was outside the scope of that report. However, in relation to coastal erosion, a number of elements need to be taken into account, particularly in relation to developments that take place along our coasts. Some coastal erosion is related to nature and is thus outside our control, but quite a lot of coastal erosion is a result of irresponsible planning and development. Inland erosion and desertification again come down to the use of our land. The issue of over-grazing in Ireland has caused a major problem in relation to soil erosion in the west of Ireland and also in some other places. Forestry is an issue which has caused major problems in relation to soil erosion throughout the European Union, particularly in the southern part of Europe. These are things that can easily be solved by looking at the way we use land. In relation to farming, we need to look at the long-term consequences of the kinds of chemicals – such as pesticides and herbicides – used in the soil. As the last speaker said, soil is vital not just in terms of beauty and aesthetic value, but also in terms of our survival, the survival of farming communities, and even the survival of those that to a certain extent have contributed to the major problem in relation to soil. I would like to congratulate the Commission for focusing on this issue, because like water and other issues, it is extremely important.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report before us does a great disservice to the topics it covers, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, because it purports to dictate to Member States a certain direction in relation to what are most important subsidiarity matters for the Member States. Neither this Parliament nor the Commission have any competence in this area. While it can be useful to discuss these matters and to tease them out, the particular timing of this report, which I accept was a long time in the pipeline, is causing an awful lot of collateral damage, which perhaps it was not intended to do. I state categorically that even today the topic of this report is on websites in Ireland and is being used by the 'no to Nice' campaign to beat around the ears those like myself who would be part of the 'yes' campaign in relation to the Nice Treaty. It is already being used on websites, including the website of a Member of this Parliament to say 'this is what Europe is about; look what they will do given half a chance. They will dictate to us on ethical issues'. I plead with colleagues, whatever your views are on the important topics in that report, do not let what we do in this Parliament be misused and abused by those people. I am particularly sensitive to the issue in Ireland at this point in time. It is not only in our interest in Ireland that we ratify the Nice Treaty, it is in the interests of all the accession states who want to rejoin the European family. Those accession states themselves have contacted many of us and the leaders of many groups about the added difficulties this report is causing. I know personally that three accession countries are having serious problems. They have a battle to win the hearts and minds of their people in relation to joining Europe, just as we have in Ireland at this particular time in relation to the ratification of the Nice Treaty. I do not mind what your views are on this issue. They are secondary at this point in time to the collateral damage this report is doing in accession states and in Ireland. That concerns me greatly. Quite a lot of other matters have been raised. Personally I do not have any difficulties with the morning-after pill. I do not consider it an abortifacient. Some of my colleagues, who like me will be voting against this report, might disagree with me on that. But we might as well get the biological facts right. It is emergency contraception. It is not an abortifacient because you do not have implantation of the fertilised egg until up to 72 hours after fertilisation. It cannot be an abortion if you are not pregnant. Let us stick to the facts. Much of the report, I feel, is very badly drafted and very repetitive. But the important point is that this is a subsidiarity issue and we must give no indication that it is otherwise. We have no competence in this Parliament. The collateral damage at this point in time is huge. I regret that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. It concerns a reference made yesterday by the President on the change of business which is taking place this week. I am very concerned indeed about the reference that the President made as to who would be present from the Council when the President of Austria attends this Parliament tomorrow. There was, and still is, concern among a lot of people that the change of business means that the Council will be absent on that important occasion. I should like to have some assurances that the Council will be represented at a sufficiently senior level to offer the respect which this Parliament traditionally offers when these sorts of visits occur. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
We wish to highlight four decisions taken at the Helsinki European Council meeting of 10 and 11 December, regardless of latter considerations, which merit the following comments: We are concerned to note the definition of the outlines of the next Intergovernmental Conference, which may clear the way for the reality of “boards of management” and for the deepening of the EU’s federalist tendency. Whilst we regret the fact that the Council decided to accept Turkey as a candidate for accession, we hope that at least no new steps are taken until its government takes the necessary measures in the area of human rights, international law on the fixing of borders, the application of the UN resolutions on Cyprus and a political solution to the Kurdish question. We criticise the decision to develop the European Union’s resources for military crisis management, in the framework of a strengthened European common policy on security and defence, conceived as the development and strengthening of NATO’s European pillar, as we also reject the militarist vision of resorting to warfare in order to resolve international conflicts. What was necessary was to have created initiatives for disarmament and the banning of nuclear testing. Finally, we feel that it is crucial to pay greater attention to the quality of employment, to reducing working hours and to giving dignity to workers and that we do not continue to insist on flexibility at work and on moderation in wages.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to support Mrs Eriksson’s request for three reasons. Firstly, as she has said, this is our last chance to examine this report. If it does not appear on this session’s agenda, it will lapse. The second reason is that it has given rise to a considerable amount of work in committee. We are all aware that it has been the subject of many disagreements, but the committee has succeeded in finding a compromise. Everything is therefore ready and I think that it is only fair to ensure that all the work which has been done receives a favourable outcome. Finally, this is a social issue which is very sensitive in many countries. We may be in favour of this report, we may be against it, or we may want to amend it, but I believe that the worst thing we could do would be to give the impression that we are unwilling to deal with this subject. That is why, Mr President, I should like to insist, on behalf of our group, even though I am aware that the agenda is relatively crowded, that this question should be included in the agenda for this part-session.

Political group: GUE-NGL