GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to speak in favour of Mr Goebbels’ proposal. I leave this matter to the House. It is for you to decide whether you would like to postpone or not. Fridays in Strasbourg are a difficult issue for us, but today because of the sensitivity of the report – it raises issues about the general procedure of the House and our general relationship with the Commission – I personally think it would be better if the groups had an opportunity to vote when there were more Members present. I am sorry that there are not more Members present this morning. I would not ask this if I did not think that this was an important report which requires the attendance of more Members because we are taking important decisions. I know that Fridays are a sensitive issue, so I leave it to the House. But I personally would appeal to you to vote to postpone the vote on this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a variety of things have been said. For my part, I have a number of questions to put to the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council, for it would appear that, once again, Europe and the European governments are very divided, and that is not good. Moreover, despite the endeavours of the Presidency, we see the range of positions of the European governments described in the press every day. My question is this: since France is part of the Security Council – and it is the only European country to be part of it – is there any form of coordination between the other European governments in respect of the French position? What will a second resolution add to the agreements which have already been adopted regarding the sending of inspectors to Vienna? Thirdly, the citizens of our countries are asking a lot of questions, ladies and gentlemen, including on the subject of the embargo. The public is wondering, in good faith, how it is possible that, in ten years of embargo inflicted upon the civilian population, the dictator, Saddam Hussein, has been able to rebuild his military and even his nuclear arsenal. Given that this has been possible, I believe we should open a UN investigation to find out who has broken the arms embargo that has caused the Iraqi people such great suffering. If it has been broken by members of the Security Council, then, clearly, the Security Council will also lose its credibility. I therefore feel that we must be quite consistent in our actions; we must find the best way to achieve the greatest success without, indeed, causing further suffering or further deterioration of international relations. This is Europe’s role in my view but, once again, this time we have failed to realise it. Lastly, I feel that Europe must address the issue of combating terrorism and producing legal instruments for prosecuting terrorists, acting with complete honesty towards both the United States and the authoritarian regimes.

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank Mr President-in-Office of the Council. I believe – as I think we all do – that Portugal, its former president, Mr Soares, and its government, maintained a cautious and middle-of-the-road stance during the bombings in the Balkans. Today’s political statement on this issue was very positive indeed, and one which I welcome. However, there is some concern over the lack of progress made despite the good and honest intentions expressed by the European Union. Unfortunately, we have recently witnessed the eradication of Serb, Romany, Turkish, and Croatian minorities in Kosovo and we are now wondering what will happen next. The United Nation’s, and Mr Kouchner’s, mission in Kosovo ended in failure. This failure is illustrated by the fact that after an entire war that was waged to put an end to ethnic cleansing, we now have ethnic cleansing from the opposite side. And so I would like to repeat my question as to whether the Council intends to take more specific action to debate these issues with Mr Kouchner, who has a major responsibility for the situation in Kosovo today.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, can I start off by acknowledging Mr Harbour and the work he has put in to his report. Like Mr Van Hulten I commend the way he worked with other people and was prepared to take on ideas and submissions from other political groups. At the same time I thank the Commission and its staff for their support and assistance. The Harbour report is really only the broad framework, it is basically the bones. There is still a lot to be done, and I believe that Parliament cannot rest on its laurels. We have already heard that the Commissioner earlier today launched a series of papers on individual aspects of the report. Parliament, I understand, will not officially be considering these. This is a mistake. For what happens in staff reform in the Commission will ultimately have repercussions for the Parliament and we should not forget that. I would like to pick up on the some 26 amendments which have been made to the Harbour report. As you would expect we are supporting Amendments Nos 1 to 6, submitted by the . We shall however be withdrawing Amendment No 6 and asking for a split vote on the latter part of Amendment No 15 as we do not believe the current system within the ECB lends itself to this situation. We would ask that Amendments Nos 20 and 23 be taken as additions, as in Paragraph 10 it would be utter folly to delete the involvement in drawing up the job goals and the personnel development role of the appraisal system. Amendment No 23 looks like it was an afterthought and while we are not against it, it should not replace the existing Paragraph 22. We are supporting Amendments Nos 13, 14, 16 and 9 submitted by the PPE. We are opposing the rest of the amendments as they either add nothing to the report or basically take us off into flights of fantasy. I would like to say something quickly about change. Change is never easy. Many people are resistant to change because of the fear of taking that step into the unknown. Can I say that as someone who has been an employee of an organisation which downsized without any consultation with the existing staff, I envy the Commission staff. Can I also say as someone who has been of another organisation who went through a downsizing and was made redundant, I am more than envious of the Commission staff and the way they are working and the Commissioner working with them. It is not easy being made redundant. I wish I had been offered the chance of retraining for another job within that organisation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Oswaldo Payá, winner of the 2002 Sakharov Prize, stated in this very Chamber that thousands of his countrymen and women are fighting for their rights in the midst of persecution. He also stated that hundreds of his fellow citizens had been imprisoned for claiming and defending those rights. The situation in Cuba remains unchanged. Amongst those arrested and sentenced in the last wave of repression are human rights defenders and peaceful dissidents. Many of them were members of the Christian Liberation Movement, and involved in the Varela Project. Independent journalists such as Raúl Rivero were also targeted. This gentleman is 57 years of age and received a 20-year prison sentence. Others sentenced include Omar Rodríguez, a photographer, who received a 27-year sentence and another journalist, Víctor Rolando Arroyo, sentenced to 26 years in prison. Mr President, it is no accident that Cuba is the only Latin American country not linked to the European Union by virtue of an association or cooperation agreement. These regrettable events illustrate why this is so. Sadly, the events took place just as the European Commission opened a representation in Havana, and when our institutions and many Members of this House were favourably disposed towards extending participation in the Cotonou Agreement to include Cuba. I urge the Commissioner to condemn these events and further, to state the conclusions the Commission intends to draw from them. For all these reasons, Mr President, I believe Parliament must first reject and strongly condemn these events, as provided for by the joint resolution. Parliament has to stand firm and continue to insist on freedom as a prerequisite. Secondly, Parliament must express its solidarity with all those fighting for their freedom and dignity inside Cuba. To paraphrase Oswaldo Payá, they feel no hate in their hearts as they fight, but no fear of their oppressors either.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group is broadly supportive of Mrs van den Burg's efforts on her report. Therefore, if she will excuse me, I shall concentrate on the Lamfalussy procedure extension. This group is in favour of extending the Lamfalussy procedure to banking and insurance. You have only to see the detail of the decisions being taken in Basle on banks' capital adequacy to realise that it would be a nonsense to incorporate them into primary legislation. Our American counterparts have already allowed the introduction of all the Basle decisions by secondary legislation and to delay unnecessarily would put European banks at a competitive disadvantage. However, the Council of Ministers sometimes seems to have forgotten two important things. First, that Parliament is fully committed to the democratic oversight of committees that establish implementing legislation. Secondly, that the deal on applying Lamfalussy committees to the securities market was a strictly temporary measure, which is why there are four-year 'sunset clauses' agreed by the Council in both the prospectus and the market abuse directives. Temporary means temporary. If our democratic role in monitoring is to be effective, Article 202 of the Treaty must reflect codecision over implementing committees, otherwise there will be always be a bias in this House against the delegation of powers that are necessary to deal with some extremely technical matters. For the sake of good governance and democratic oversight, the Member States should commit themselves – whether in a Council declaration or elsewhere – to a revision of Article 202, which not only introduces equivalent powers for Parliament and for the Council but also ensures there is proper oversight by this House and by the Council. Then we can proceed to extend Lamfalussy, again on a temporary basis.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, like all the other speakers so far, I must join the chorus and say that I believe this is a reasonable compromise. To use an English cricketing metaphor, it is important to deal with these kinds of issues in a pragmatic way and to 'take it in singles', to move one step at a time in order to try to ensure that the way in which we deal with the kind of pollution problems that this directive is supposed to deal with actually works. Clearly it is important to make sure that pollution is not generated in the first place. I am not sure how much that has to do with the apportionment of the way in which liability arises if pollution does occur. If it occurs then we need to see how it is dealt with. As other speakers have said, the polluter-pays principle must be the right one. On the other hand, if one defines the polluter-pays principle, it is important that one does not just cast about to find some wretched victim who may have had some kind of association with what happened and heap all the liability on to him. Perhaps that is why we disagree with some of the other speakers in this debate. I can envisage circumstances where it is right and just that the government has a role, where pollution has taken place, and where it may not be appropriate to put the blame or impose the responsibility for what occurs on some other party. Lastly, it is important in the context of the politics of this kind of debate not to have a knee-jerk reaction to any particular pollution incident in the recent past. We often hear mention of the Prestige. Of course that was a disaster, but when we are thinking about general rules against general problems, we must not be too specific.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I heartily welcome the fact that you have said that you wish to improve structures, in the aim of improving the credibility of the authorities. I think that we need to consider how we can best present this to the general public. The question which I therefore ask myself is this: has in fact a start been made on how we can promote the media in this area, how we can train journalists and how we can improve information to the public on peaceful coexistence? We have endeavoured to provide material help. We have tried to defend peace by taking military action. What is the situation now as regards efforts to include psychological criteria in this crisis area and provide the best possible support here?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by extending my sincere thanks to the President and the Members of the Court of Auditors for their Annual Report, which was, as ever, extremely useful. The Annual Report is extremely critical and the statement of assurance has again been denied. Nothing new there, for this has been the case for years now. However, the last elections left us in no doubt as to the fact that the public has had enough of stories about the European finances being in a shambles. That is why it is of the utmost importance that this report at last be taken seriously. The Court of Auditors report must not be an annual media spectacle that ends up in a cupboard afterwards. This represents a real opportunity to improve Europe’s financial management. As President Karlsson has already said: all institutions must play their part in these improvements, and this should be done in the following way. Firstly, the Member States really must take responsibility now. Fraud in Europe is still equated with fraud in Brussels. But for all that, more than 80% of the money is spent by the Member States. National control mechanisms can and must do better. Above all though, we must foster the notion that one should spend European money just as wisely as national money. We would ask the Commission to show that it is in earnest where the promised reforms are concerned. Managers must also be brought to account in respect of their financial management abilities. Every year, DGs must set out the steps they have taken to address any criticisms raised by the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors itself could make its Annual Report more useful still by making two additions. Firstly, it could include statistical data, which would make sticking points even more visible, and secondly, it could refer back to set topics at regular intervals so as to enable us to see if there have been any improvements. Of course the European Parliament must keep its finger on the pulse of reform, but above all, this Parliament must set a good example and, at long last, adopt a statute. European money is public money. In order to win back the citizens’ trust, all institutions must demonstrate that they are serious about fighting and preventing fraud. This is the only way that we will be able to win back their trust.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on this proposal for a recommendation, I would like to express my satisfaction at the end document, which was the result of a joint effort by Mr Evans, Mrs Martens and myself. I would especially like to thank Mr Evans and Mr Martens for their fruitful cooperation. During the nineties the Commission produced several recommendations on the issue but no practical solutions were found. I therefore hope that, this time, a solution will be found once and for all, so that mobility throughout the European Union – of students, young persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers – will become one of the crowning glories of the European Union, putting paid to that paradox whereby it is easier for goods, capital or services to move within the European Union than it is for the citizens themselves. The problems to be resolved vary from country to country: for example, regulations differ on matters of social security, study grants, right of residence and taxation, and there is no system for the mutual recognition of qualifications and work placements. Then there is a dearth of information on opportunities for mobility and there is the barrier of the lack of knowledge of languages. I would draw attention, out of the amendments tabled, to the inclusion in this recommendation of the specific category of researchers, since this category was originally included in the Green Paper. I am firmly of the opinion that, rising above the problems of organisation and coordination, which cannot be avoided for they are a result of the reorganisation of the directorates-general of the Commission, it is vital to support and foster research in Europe, for research is a fundamental vector for the growth, international competitiveness and development of the Member States, particularly if we compare the situation with that of the United States and consider the negative implications of mobility problems which are driving young researchers to go to the United States rather than attempt to move within the European Union. This is why the category of researchers should be included, Mr Evans. I therefore call upon the Member States to make every endeavour, alongside the Commission, to resolve the bureaucratic and other problems of mobility, and to set specific goals in the form of a two-yearly action plan and a final report. This is the very minimum necessary if we are to achieve that area of freedom which is the basic right of every European citizen.

Political group: PPE-DE
The agreement that has just been reached in Parliament was based on a misguided Commission proposal, which viewed the matter in exclusively commercial terms and which sought to review the process of legislating on medicines, with the basic aim of increasing the short-tern competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry. This position was immediately contested by various social, consumer, family and mutual organisations from various countries, all fighting for a responsible policy that will serve public health and consumer protection. Consequently, at first reading, Parliament was able to make substantial changes to the Commission proposals, which the Council only accepted in part. At second reading, some of the original proposals were accepted and whilst the compromise that has been voted on today in the European Parliament does not accept all the proposals that we put forward, it significantly improves the Council position, specifically as regards defining generic medicines, as regards the request for a distinction to be made between advertising and information and as regards the invitation to the Commission to undertake a study of current practices in the field of information, with the aim of improving quality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on Thursday, 9 October, you informed us of the fact that you had received the common position on the revision of legislation on medicines. This is important legislation, and if the common position is adopted, the effect will be a significant increase in the price of medicines in a number of countries, not only in the present Member States, but also in the countries that will be joining the EU with effect from May 2004. The Public Health Ministers of the ten accession countries recently lodged a complaint against the common position and against the way in which it has been arrived at. The accession countries have negotiated the treaties and have taken decisions on the basis of the old legislation. This new legislation is a slap in the face for the governments and peoples of the ten new Member States. Indeed, it is putting them to great expense without them having any say in the matter. This is not exactly an example of proper governance. The question is now how we in this House should respond to this. We must at any rate find a way of taking proper account of the interests of the new Member States. Rule 76 of our Rules of Procedure stipulates that in the common position, reference shall be made to the committee responsible and to the committees asked for their opinion at first reading. Given the potentially major implications for the new Member States, it would also be advisable to seek the opinion of this House’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy at second reading, since this committee is probably best placed to formulate the interests of the new Member States. I therefore urge you, in these special circumstances, to seek the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental issue we are addressing here is whether coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops is truly possible. Unless we find a practical and precise answer to this question, there can be no basis for the much-vaunted freedom of choice. Farmers who produce conventional and organic crops will have no choice and consumers will have no choice if genetically modified crops affect conventional and organic crops. We must not allow our hand to be forced by a powerful lobby consisting of an increasingly limited group of huge multinationals that market genetically modified crops and which seek to control agriculture and food production against the wishes of European farmers and consumers who, in countless opinion polls, have already expressed their reservations and even fear about genetically modified organisms. I therefore welcome this own-initiative report by Parliament, which is all the more important because the Commission itself was delaying this debate. The report also opens the way for the de facto moratorium that has existed since 1998 to be lifted. As a matter of fact, this is a demand that I myself made in a joint-initiative resolution with members of my group in March 2003. Everyone is aware of the inherent risks of contamination from the release of GMOs into the environment. Scientific studies on cross-pollination and the dissemination of GMOs are still too limited for us to have a precise and reliable evaluation of all the consequences. Throughout this debate, however, bearing in mind the opinions presented at the parliamentary hearing, the conclusion we are bound to reach is that contamination cannot really be avoided in the large-scale presence of genetically modified crops, with consequences ranging from the loss of biodiversity to economic damage to conventional and organic farming. Consequently, despite the risk of dissemination varying according to the type of genetically modified crop, their management cannot be efficiently and viably contained. A farm that opts for a genetically modified crop cannot then revert to conventional or organic farming. Our experiences with animal disease, specifically BSE and Foot-and-Mouth disease should serve as warnings of the problems of reliability and cost that will face the monitoring systems that are put in place. Consequently, as the rapporteur states in his report – on which I congratulate him – the most effective and economic way of ensuring coexistence is the renunciation, whether voluntary or restricted at regional level, of GMO cultivation. Furthermore, the Community provisions established cannot jeopardise every Member State’s right to ban genetically modified crops throughout their territory or in geographically limited areas. What is obvious in this entire process is that, if coexistence is not possible, the moratorium should remain in place in order to observe the precautionary principle. We should consequently support at least item 9 of this report and I personally hope that Parliament will tomorrow adopt the report in its entirety.

Political group: GUE-NGL