GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a scientist on loan to politics, as I like to describe myself, who has worked in the most advanced laboratories in Italy and elsewhere and who has worked with highly advanced countries such as the United States and Japan, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her extreme sensitivity, her competence and her enthusiasm. I would, of course, also like to thank all the members of the committee, irrespective of their political party, and, in particular, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude on behalf of the academic world to Commissioner Philippe Busquin for the extreme sensitivity he has shown in creating, at last, a European common research area. The creation of a common research area in Europe will, at last, make it possible to fully exploit networks of high quality centres and achieve that critical mass which is essential both for the progress of knowledge per se and to provide practical answers to the man in the street: answers which cover a range of issues, from the control of terrible illnesses such as AIDS or cancer to neurodegenerative diseases or injuries caused by environmental pollution and so forth. This is why we support the Commissioner! Dear Commissioner, what a challenge! We will keep fighting in order to overcome that red tape which tends to delay the achievement of these goals. The adoption of the amendments I tabled will greatly promote recognition of the common research area and boost its efficiency. Thus, the first amendment, which calls for at least 3% of the gross domestic product of all the countries of the European Union to be allocated to research, represents a great victory and will allow us to compete with the United States and Japan. The second amendment I tabled on behalf of the poor, vulnerable and abandoned regions, the Objective 1 regions of the South, i.e. to invest 5% of the unused regional funds – which would otherwise be taken back – to benefit those regions, will, at last, make it possible to exploit the excellent human resources available to us and close the gap in infrastructures and technology between these regions and the regions of Europe. The third amendment, which was also approved by our friend Mr Novelli – whom I would like to thank – will apply tax exemption and, thereby, at last make it possible to further increase the level of research carried out in all sectors. Commissioner, I would therefore like to finish by paying tribute to the new scientific research structure which you have introduced. On 20 June, two Nobel prize-winners, Rita Levi Montalcini, holder of the Nobel Prize for neuroscience, and Renato Dulbecco, will pay tribute to this initiative, in recognition of the fact that, at long last, in establishing the research area, you have conferred great honour on all research scientists.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I do not normally praise the Commission but, on this occasion, I wish to do so both in view of the Green Paper, or the follow-up to the Green Paper to which you refer, and also in view of the fact that we are soon to have the opportunity to cooperate within the ‘enforcement sector’ in the matter of consumer protection. I wish to put three questions: Will any sector be excluded from a fair trade directive’s being applied to it? We now see that, in spite of our having obtained a financial services directive, there is still a lot to be done. How will the European Parliament be associated with the group of experts? What is to happen concerning the proposal for a regulation on sales promotion measures? I also regret that Parliament has still not been able to come up with a response to the Green Paper, but that has quite a lot to do with shortcomings in the way in which Parliament is structured when it comes to dealing with consumer issues.

Political group: ELDR
I am particularly disappointed at the European Parliament’s vote on the report on the reproduction of vine plants. I am disappointed that Parliament has neither understood nor tried to understand the message of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and of the , who have tried to draw attention to the underhand way in which the executive committee acted in order to water down the issue of GMOs in its reports so that we will end up with vast amounts of them on our plates and in our glasses. No, I have not got the wrong debate. The are perfectly in tune with public opinion and consumers, who are concerned about future food products. The are in tune with wine growers, producers and merchants who are worried about the introduction of GMOs into vine plants. By refusing, by 397 votes to 115, to back the amendments proposing to withdraw the references to GMOs, the European Parliament has failed in its role of guardian of the precautionary principle and is guilty of allowing GMOs to be infiltrated into vine plant reproduction through the back door, in contempt of European regulations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, a few moments ago, when I spoke on the previous item on the agenda, I pointed out the definition of what we understood by a company and I stressed that a company, as an organisation, implies plurality and that a company consisting of a single person would not legally be classed as a company. And plurality means the obligation to regulate the role of workers throughout the organisation. I believe that Mr Menrad’s report responds magnificently to this issue and we must congratulate him on the quality of his work. The objective of the Directive is to improve the right of workers to be informed and consulted by the multinational companies or groups which operate in Europe. It is estimated that currently more than 1 100 multinationals, which employ approximately 15 million people, would be affected by this Directive and by its modification. I agree with the rapporteur when he asks for and expects the Commission to amend Directive 94/45/EC, making information and consultation rights into a means for facilitating social dialogue as a key element of social and labour relations in the companies affected. I also agree with him when he asks for the role of these participation, information and consultation bodies not only to be relevant at times of industrial transformation and crisis, but that they should be of a permanent nature in a global economy in which we see symptoms and characteristics of globalisation, and, furthermore, that the exercise of these rights be enshrined at the appropriate procedural moment. And all of this is so that workers are guaranteed that their voice will be heard, not only at times of restructuring, but whenever decisions are taken which are essential to the permanence and future of the company and of their workplaces or delegations. This is the content of the amendments I have presented and which the rapporteur has been kind enough to incorporate. Every day we hear news of essential social importance which shocks us: all the delegations of a company are being closed in one or various countries; the company is studying a massive reduction in jobs; a merger is announced and the workers are wondering what will happen and how many will be fired or sent home, and these decisions are often taken for stock exchange reasons – to improve share prices – rather than for fundamental reasons. Communication after the decision serves little purpose in these cases. The company is an organisation, sometimes a community, with somewhat conflicting interests. I would like to stress that the content of these rights must also refer to training, to ongoing learning, to health and to safety, to equality of opportunity, to the environment, to the incorporation of young people into the workplace. All of this will make the company into a better-reconciled community, with less conflict. This will increase productivity and increase employment, and will improve living conditions, thereby leading to a better Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have been up in my room just now, and it is little surprising that Fridays are so devalued. The television technicians have gone home, so the television pictures are of the Assembly and no longer of the original speakers. The staff are apparently running for the exits from 9 a.m. on Friday mornings, so it is hardly surprising that Fridays are being devalued. I would ask you to check that the whole service of Parliament is available so long as the House is sitting.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is not often that one has cause to simply feel glad about something in the all too ponderous run of things in the European Parliament. However, the report by Duff and Voggenhuber has given us cause for this today. I would particularly like to take this opportunity to highlight how doggedly they have pursued their goal. All too often one has the feeling in this House, that notwithstanding all verbal declarations, the superior might and advantages enjoyed by the Council and the Commission prevail, and all too often, this is where the interests of national parties and governments win through as well. Duff and Voggenhuber, on the other hand, think of themselves as true European Parliamentarians whose task it is to further the interests of Europe as a whole. And so tomorrow, we will be able to adopt a report, which is based on the premise that naturally the European Parliament, and not the national governments, would be responsible for instituting the fundamental rights of the European Union. This Charter will only meet the needs of the citizens of Europe under two provisos. Firstly, it must be given substance, and secondly, it must be made binding in law. However, it is stunningly disappointing to note how the Convention, which has been specifically set up for this purpose, is high on competences but very low in courage. And so really, this report could also be viewed as an appeal to the Convention that goes like this: ‘Dare to do something at long last! Dare to include innovations in the Charter, particularly those in the sphere of information and biotechnology, but also where equal rights for women and environmental protection are concerned. Dare to do more than just spend time in the glass palace of Parliament talking about the people of Europe – get out there and involve them! And dare to adopt the standards on international labour law set by the International Labour Organisation.’ The Charter is precisely the instrument we need to give Europe a soul, and it could help create a common identity. Why is it that EU governments are so quick off the mark when it comes to pushing through economic reforms but so hesitant when it comes to political rights? Do you not realise that Europe as we know it will fall apart if we put all our efforts into bringing on the economy and do not do anything to promote political fundamental rights? Conscious of my position as an Austrian, I would therefore like to make the following appeal to the national governments: ‘wake up, it is in your own interests to give fundamental rights a chance! With this in mind, I hope the report in question achieves an overwhelming majority in plenary tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
The British Conservatives, however, are forced reluctantly to vote against the resolution because of a number of references which we do not believe are helpful either to understanding or to good relations. There is, for example, a reference to unilateral approaches to problems that is offensive and which ignores the pre-eminent role which the United States as the world's largest and most powerful country must inevitably play if the values to which we subscribe are to be upheld. The insistence that the United States share Europe's view on the ICC is also made plain - despite the problems that an unamended statute would cause for the United States at present. Equally there is no need for Europe continually to seek disagreement with the United States over the death penalty which remains legal in international law. We need to respect their difference of opinion, not attempt to raise it as a symbol of European moral superiority over the United States. There has been too much anti-Americanism in Europe recently and Europe needs to remember what it owes to America. That is not fully reflected in the resolution as it stands. Lastly we cannot support QMV in the CFSP. - Report Terrón i Cusí (A5-0224/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the question today is to what extent the Johannesburg Summit achieved actual results, and what the EU's role was in this. Has any progress been made in this ambitious area? Have new definite objectives, and above all, timeframes, been set? Have old objectives been confirmed? A question that is even more important, in my view, is: where do we go from here? Will we go into action worldwide? It is high time we did! Taking an overall view and considering the climate in which the negotiations were held, my group takes the view that the outcome is reasonably positive. It could have been worse. However, we certainly have a few points of criticism. I want to make it clear, though, that we are particularly positive about the role that the European Union played. It was a pioneering role, certainly as regards worldwide commitment to ensuring that a million people have access to basic sanitary facilities and, in their own way, be given human dignity, better health and a better living environment. Furthermore, we reached agreement on curbing overfishing, dangerous chemicals, and made multinationals accountable for destructive practices. These too are all firmly on the agenda. We also welcome the commitment concerning gender mainstreaming. We also believe that the liberal ideas, on which we have insisted for so long, are firmly embedded in the plan of action. I am, of course, referring to the fight against corruption, maintaining the rule of law, democracy, human rights and good governance. In our view, these are crucial elements to address before we can embark on new partnerships with developing countries. On the whole and considering the climate, we should count ourselves lucky that we managed to persuade the world not to go in for any backtracking, despite the strong opposition from the United States and some other countries. Indeed, they displayed an unwillingness to reach reasonable agreements. The US, in particular, managed to dig its heels in at every opportunity. This is beyond me. It is mainly thanks to the EU's united stance that any progress was made at all. I saw it with my own eyes: it was the EU at its best. A true world player. A trend setter. The EU set the agenda time and again. This is why we should pay tribute to the negotiators. We also have some criticism. In our view, the EU skated over the subject of sustainable energy too quickly. In our view, the new partnership for energy should have been launched in a better way and should have been discussed beforehand in Parliament. My final point relates to political legitimisation, which concerned me, and I agree with my fellow MEPs. I shall not go into any more detail. It is a missed opportunity that the EP did not act more clearly as Dritte im Bunde [Third in the Alliance]. Finally, however, I should nevertheless like to express my thanks, respect and appreciation. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am obliged to the Commissioner for his statement. Whilst we are, of course, convinced that our amendments are absolutely right and proper, what the Commissioner has said does at least, in terms of its content and of what is meant by it, go in the direction we want, that Parliament should be capable – albeit informally – of changing its mind about the appointment of the special coordinator of the Stability Pact. This statement by the Commission makes that clear. I would ask you, Commissioner, to thank the services, especially Mr Priebe, for the very good cooperation that we have had in this matter. I would also like to state that, whatever our concerns may have been, a desire to make life difficult for Dr Busek in his capacity as the special coordinator has not been one of them. I take the view that Dr Busek is one of our most outstanding co-workers in the broader sense of the word, who is committed to the region and knows what is going on in it. You can be sure that, if he were again to be nominated, he would certainly receive this House’s full support. If someone else is nominated, then we will of course give the matter due consideration and state our opinion. I wish to accept the proposal that the Commission has made, and I will, tomorrow, be recommending to the House that we proceed to a full vote. Then you, Commissioner, and the Commission would be able to do what you want to do and get things up and running with effect from 1 January.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Socialist Group can only support the proposal to extend the fishing agreement between the Community and Equatorial Guinea by one year. We are also pleased that, according to news reports from two weeks ago, an agreement has been reached to renew the aforementioned agreement between the Community and Equatorial Guinea for three years. This is a modest agreement, both in terms of fishing opportunities and in terms of financial compensation – since 1994 it has been restricted to tuna-fishing ships – but it is no less important for that. The previous protocol contained a financial contribution for grants and aid for units for monitoring fishing grounds and for non-industrial fishing. However, we agree with Mr Gallagher and we share his concern that little or nothing has been done on these inspection and monitoring tasks, so much so that what concerns us most about fishing relations with Equatorial Guinea is that the country may become a flag of convenience as a result of this lack of control, which has already led to sanctions from the ICCAT. The Commission must call on the Government of Equatorial Guinea to act in accordance with the Convention on Maritime Law and with international law. We call on the Commission to provide more information on these aspects and to act more diligently in dealing with the authorities of that country so that it may adapt its practices to international law and to the recommendations of the ICCAT. The Member States should also apply these principles in their relations with that country as well as within ACP fora. The sector too often feels abandoned as a result of the lack of a joint policy. Ladies and gentlemen, a single musician cannot perform a symphony. As well as a whole orchestra reading the same score, a conductor is required, and the Commission must show that it has the will to act as the conductor. And while the Commissioner is present and given that six months after the expiry of the agreement, negotiations with Cape Verde have ground to a halt, could he tell me if this deadlock is caused, as the press says, by differences on fishing opportunities and financial compensation, or by the Government of Cape Verde’s unwillingness to allow the Community to tell it what to do with that funding?

Political group: PSE
Authoritarian governments have always been characterised by the notion that they can best survive criticism on their policy by restricting their citizens in their freedom of information exchange, opinion, organisation and travel. The fear of terror attacks that has grown since last year has prompted a revival of plans to reinforce the army, police and secret services and to restrict civil liberties. For a while, this fear makes these controversial plans more acceptable to a large proportion of the population than they would be at other times. The public have since discovered the drawbacks of such a development. In the Netherlands, a campaign among computer users against the requirement that electronic mail be stored, requested by the Council, gained 2500 supporters within the space of two days last week. Quite apart from this breach of the mail's confidentiality, which has been in existence for more than a century, there have been attempts to deprive radical opposition movements of all prospects and cause them to resort to violence, upon which they can be declared illegal. Political organisations in exile, based in Europe, are stripped of their right of residence and are cut off from the movement of payments. Fortunately, this Parliament too is starting to realise that fear of terror should not be a reason for abolishing the democratic and tolerant character of our society. I reject the proposal, but endorse the proposals to better protect personal data, inform Parliament and place reports in the public domain.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the Prestige disaster is a timely reminder that aquaculture is no different from any other potentially polluting industrial activity, and can itself be seriously affected. This has been the case for the Galician fish farms. Aquaculture has a promising future. It will make it possible to maintain the supply of high quality products to the markets. It will also allow depleted fishing grounds to be restocked. This is a new option. Additional support is required for research and the development of new products free from genetic modification. Direct cooperation with local and regional authorities must also be strengthened in order to promote aquaculture. This is particularly necessary in those areas worst affected by drastic restructuring resulting from failure to sign fishing agreements, or following the reform of the common fisheries policy. Lastly, I urge the Commission not to overlook traditional activities such as aquaculture in estuaries and their impact on the natural environment, much of which is protected.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I warmly welcome this report. My group has submitted a small number of amendments which aim to highlight the importance of greater transparency and environmental commitment in the work of the EIB and also, in particular, to ensure that the EIB applies the highest ethical standards possible in project financing, including withdrawal from any project carried out in breach of national legislation or where corrupt enterprises are involved. In connection with that last point, I am sure Mr Maystadt is aware of the ongoing court case in Lesotho, where European companies are on trial for allegedly paying bribes to win contracts in the Lesotho Highlands water project, a project part-funded by the EIB. Since corrupt practices in the award of contracts for development projects represents a major threat to the provision of good governance, would you agree, Mr Maystadt, that it is crucial that the EIB examine its due diligence procedures, with respect not only to the Lesotho project, but also to all future projects, and will you report back to Parliament on its findings? A brief question to the Commission: will the Commission honour the commitment made several years ago to provide the necessary financial support to the Lesotho Government, so as to enable it to pursue these court cases to their conclusion and thereby guarantee good governance?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we all know that disarmament, which is making progress, and the removal of Saddam Hussein are merely a pretext. The real motive, of this there can be no doubt, is the quest of the USA and its allies to control Iraq’s oil fields and geo-strategic position. It is also a fact that the war, with or without a UN resolution, will have terrible consequences not just for the Iraqi people, but for the region, Europe and the world as a whole. The question is, will the Greek Presidency and the European Union respond to the massive opposition being voiced by our and the American people and prevent this senseless crime? Will they use their 4 votes in the Security Council to do this? Will the Greek and other governments stop helping to prepare for war by giving the aggressors every possible assistance? At this crucial stage, when the Soviet Union is highly conspicuous by its absence, I make a last appeal to you and all my honourable friends; we must prevent this war, which will serve as a precedent for more war. We must bar the road to ruin! At the same time, let us express our solidarity with the Iraqi people in their fight to overturn this tyrannical regime.

Political group: GUE-NGL