GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, unfortunately, the other night, while walking around in the dark at home, I fractured the little toe of my left foot and, for the life of me, I no longer had it in me to give the explanation of vote. I am very concerned. Can my explanation of vote be given by my feet?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, often it seems that education plays second fiddle to the issues of market liberalisation, technological innovation and indeed the promotion of telecommunications and entrepreneurial infrastructure. However, the Bullmann report calls to our attention that all these measures come to absolutely naught if we do not have an educated citizenry that can create, operate and service these sectors. Therefore, education in the context of a sophisticated manufacturing and entrepreneurial milieu in a society that requires frequent switches in skills basis and a society that requires mobility across borders, becomes a precondition, a predeterminant, of our success in a knowledge economy, not simply one of the results of its successes. How can we hope to have a competitive, dynamic economy when Member States today have substantial proportions of illiteracy, huge inequalities in linguistic capacity, protectionism and discrepancies in occupational and educational qualifications, and numerous financial and legal barriers to mobility. The changes we need, require fundamental cooperation across Member States of a kind that education ministers, vice-chancellors of universities and national qualification agencies find enormously difficult. Therefore facing these extraordinary difficulties, the one thing at Barcelona that would move us forward immensely would be to provide the framework, the joint commitment and a realistic appraisal of the resources required to ensure that we make these fundamental leaps to promote education as the fundamental step in the future of the competitive knowledge economy in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Mr President, for allowing me to speak. This is my maiden speech in this Chamber. I, too, welcome the initiative of a first EU-Africa summit. The need for it has been felt and discussed for nigh on 50 years. However, as a member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I must express my reservations at the lack of support from the European Parliament. I also condemn the fact that Agenda 2000 did not tackle the issue of the future responsibilities of the European Union towards developing countries. There are two sides to the issue: the request from Europe for African countries to respect human rights, good governance and democratic institutions, and the appeal, loud and clear, from the African countries for the cancellation of their debt, which is seen as responsible for stifling the development, economic growth and welfare of the communities. A balance has to be found, and some common ground. Parliament has tried to tackle this issue several times in the past, apparently without ever achieving tangible results. We need a powerful, sincere, widespread initiative; there are calls from several different quarters, including the Holy See during this Jubilee year, for a substantial reduction, if not the total cancellation of the third world debt, by such means as to facilitate the inclusion of the most heavily indebted countries in the world production and trade circuit. In my view, we need to set up a structure to analyse the situations of the various different countries and assess their political situations, in order to establish by how much to reduce their debts or whether to cancel them. This would take into consideration the extent to which past financial aid has been put to good use, and therefore involve the governments, civil society, local churches and non-governmental organisations.

Political group: PPE-DE
For months we have heard that incessant rain has caused serious flooding in numerous regions of France. In the département of the Somme, where there was three times the normal rainfall between October 2000 and April 2001, several dozen communes are still under water. Thousands of people have been evacuated, often having lost everything. The damage to infrastructures, houses and crops has been put at several billion francs. Human and material resources have been deployed at all levels to cope with the crisis which families have been suffering for months now. This wave of solidarity, however, which many citizens have been involved in, is still not enough. The European Union should, I think, as others have already said, take an active part in this solidarity by paying emergency aid to the people affected, so that infrastructures can be restored and economic activity restarted. This is the main demand in the resolution by our group, which also stresses the need to step up action to protect ecosystems and fight the pollution which are partly to blame for increasingly frequent climatic disasters.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, we in our Group agree with the good report by Mr Galeote, apart from one small detail which I will mention in a moment. When one leaves the European Union, it is shocking to experience the paradox that the Union has a strong image from the outside despite having a practically non-existent image from within. The necessary coordination does not exist within the European Union. It is therefore essential for the Union to put its all its weight behind the external services and coordination. In this respect, we must accept that, with a miserly budget, we are not going to be able to achieve the image, the appropriate coordination, an unequivocal presence in the UNO, or in other international bodies, and we should therefore revise the financial perspectives in that direction. We should also concentrate on greater coordination of the information received so that we do not have to witness such sad spectacles as the Member States giving differing opinions. That is why it is important to take the direction indicated by Mr Galeote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The parliamentary process concerning this question has been confusing, to say the least. Before the vote at the plenary sitting, new amendments have been tabled such as have already been voted down by the Committee. In the divided situation which has now arisen, we therefore consider that the Council’s wordings are the best. We need a directive in this area, and we also therefore want to avoid a complicated conciliation procedure. The directive concerning end-of-life vehicles will stand as an example for future legislation. It is therefore important that the manufacturer’s liability should be clear. This should not in any way be jeopardised.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Council has adopted the European Parliament’s amendments on the labelling of beef products. There has been fruitful interinstitutional cooperation, and the codecision procedure has shown its strength. The result is a victory for consumers, and not just them, but the whole beef sector chain: the producers, the processing industry and the organisations representing the beef trade. This regulation will make it possible to trace the origin of meat, and even according to a reasonable timetable. After EU enlargement this sort of system will be vital for consumers and producers. To tell the truth, we could not have waited any longer for this system to be put into practice. Now it depends on the Member States whether the practice of labelling is adopted in the hoped for manner. I also hope consumer organisations will give their strong support to the implementation of the provisions in practice.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, with regard to my speech on the debate about the inadmissibility or supposed inadmissibility of the Schleicher report on the status of parties, I asked for the point to be included in the agenda for today, but I would like to add the following: I made this request pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure, which gives the President the authority to propose it, and I would like this point to be added because here we are not debating a referral back to committee, but whether a commando act during a plenary sitting of Parliament can modify the agenda and wipe a subject as important as this from the attention of the Members of this House for years to come, basically, for ever. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I nevertheless deplore the way in which this vote has proceeded. I regret that our colleagues were not serious to the end and showed no respect for the efforts of our fellow Members who worked on this resolution. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Those of us who have studied the matter closely are certainly able to welcome the real progress that is nevertheless being made by Turkey to reform its prison system. We also share something of the suffering of the political prisoners and their families who have chosen to starve themselves to death. The Turkish judicial and penal system is in transition from a regime of retribution and oppression to a more western approach, where prisoners are penalised but not persecuted. The European Union should assist this reform process by supporting financially and also technically certainly carefully selected confidence-building measures, without which the fasting will not cease. These measures include training of judicial officials, prison officers and gendarmes, ensuring first-class medical services, improving conditions for prison visits and installing the independent scrutiny of the prison system and protecting lawyers. Solitary confinement must be the exception and not the norm. Prison rules must be applied scrupulously and the arbitrary treatment of all prisoners must stop.

Political group: ELDR
I missed the beginning of the sitting, for which I apologise, but I was at a meeting with Xanana Gusmão. I am extremely curious to find out, as the press has barely covered the matter, how things went in Helsinki in terms of the third pillar, which falls precisely within Commissioner Vitorino’s competence. At the Tampere meeting, much was said about third pillar issues, about internal security, justice and all the rest, and the Commissioner was supposed to take to Helsinki something that was already tangible. I would like to know what happened in Helsinki, if he is able to give me an answer.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the two proposals we are debating tonight – which I agree are taking place far too late, given their importance – are pertinent for a variety of reasons. Firstly, because they are going to test the capacity and will of the electrics and electronics sector to maintain an attitude of active commitment to the protection of the environment, but also because they are going to test the capacity and will of the European institutions, Parliament in particular, to take a realistic and coherent approach, that can be adopted by the industry. The rapporteur, Mr Florenz, has had a difficult task in his attempt to produce a solid and effective proposal that can be accepted by all parties concerned. Now, as is apparent from this debate, in dealing with a complex and pioneering initiative in this field, there are still, in my opinion, many gaps and problems coming to light in its practical application. Two of these are of particular concern to me. One such example is consumables, such as those that have been mentioned here tonight. I believe that if we use this concept in an excessively wide sense we will be jeopardising those Member States who already have collection systems in place, in breaking up existing re-use circuits, inasmuch as we would be favouring recycling over re-use, before asking ourselves the question whether we are favouring the most ecologically sound system. Secondly, I would like to refer to ‘free-riders’. I believe that the compromise amendment presented is an appropriate solution, given that it did not seem logical that, taking the issue of individual financial responsibility as an example, we should have to make product manufacturers who disappear from the market or those who refuse to be identified responsible for their actions. I think we should take on a demanding approach with manufacturers who do not face up to their responsibilities with regard to waste, in order to defend those responsible manufacturers who have no reason to take on costs caused by these ‘free-riders’.

Political group: PPE-DE
The policy of restructuring the shipbuilding industry and the resultant cutbacks in it have resulted in tens of thousands of unemployed workers. The loss of half the EU's share of the global market within a mere two years is due to the stand taken by the ΕU and the Member States which, instead of supporting and improving this strategic sector, are supporting and multiplying the profits of the monopolies, mainly in Germany and Denmark. This once highly developed sector has been especially hard hit in Greece, a country with a long maritime history and one of the largest fleets in the world. The ship repair industry could, with another policy, have become an important sector of the economy rather than all but disappearing. Small businesses are today being persecuted, while the larger shipyards have been sold off to the private sector for a pottage of lentils and their activities cut back. Thousands of workers in this sector are literally starving and entire areas are being condemned to decline, with unemployment over 80%. Another wooden shipbuilding company, Hippokambos, closed just recently, turning a further 300 workers out into the street. Those working in this sector are beginning to realise that they cannot wait for answers from the ΕU, its policies and the international imperialist agreements being proposed, which is why they are joining forces and fighting for a different, anti-monopolistic, and anti-imperialist policy. - Bushill-Matthews report (A5-0133/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, unlike the last speaker I do not think this is an issue that should be trivialised in this way. Last night, I was astonished by Mr Fatuzzo's speech. This is an issue which concentrates on cruelty towards, and inhumane abuse of, animals. It is nothing to laugh about. We should not be making jokes about these issues. This is an extremely important issue. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this House. Last night people were using the excuse that we need further testing but we have to be sure that we do not cause any damage to children, that we must protect them. It is ironic that those same people voted against our amendment in committee in relation to the fact that fragrances are included in baby products. If we really want to protect children then surely those people would have voted to ban the use of fragrances in baby products. They are completely unnecessary. They also expose babies to unnecessary risks. I want to re-endorse the fact that this is not a trivial issue. It is extremely serious. The general public throughout the EU are very much opposed to the use of animals for something that is completely unnecessary. This is basically cosmetics – things to boost people's egos, making a huge amount of money for the industry. We really should take account of animal welfare. It is unjustifiable in the twenty-first century that we are using such prehistoric practices.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to point out that I have the right to speak, for my esteemed fellow Member Mr Poettering did not only talk about the Fiori report: he spoke about the whole of Wednesday’s agenda, and as proposer, I feel that I have the right to speak, because it was my group that put forward the proposal to once again include in the agenda for Wednesday morning the oral questions that were initially put to the Council on a subject that is so important, especially if we consider the free time that we – according to what we are led to believe – have available. I would like to take the opportunity, Madam President, to protest strongly and ask that you, yourself, do the same before the Council, for the representative of the Council, in the Conference of Presidents, gave a piece of information which I understand to be inaccurate, if not completely untrue, in relation to Council meetings. Justice and Home Affairs Council is going to meet, as expected, on Friday, yet the representative of the Council at the Conference of Presidents said that the meeting would be taking place on 7 December. This information is misleading, particularly at a time when Parliament is making a substantial effort to proceed with the emergency procedure on anti-terrorist legislation, and I think it was a serious mistake, because it has led to confusion that has had a negative effect on everyone concerned. Firstly, in relation to this apparently empty Wednesday morning agenda, according to Mr Poettering. Secondly, Madam President, I think it is a major political mistake to subordinate a legislative report such as the Caudron report to a question that will have ethical repercussions for all – not only for one particular political group – for we need to be working on that which is relevant to us all: the draft legislation. Furthermore, as anticipated, we can remain perfectly calm and still have the time needed to deal with matters as serious as those set out in the Fiori report without necessarily having to resort to the emergency procedure. We therefore agree that the matter should be debated in the November II part-session, as had initially been planned.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to draw attention to a number of budget lines that are dealt with in the Committee on Employment. First of all the three lines dealing with social dialogue – B3-4002, B3-4003 and B3-4310. The last one deals with the Trade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety. We are looking to increase the amounts on each of these lines, largely because of enlargement. It is very important that we get the basic building blocks of social dialogue in place in the applicant countries and we need to begin to channel resources in that direction. Secondly, I should like to mention B3-4314. This concerns health and safety improvements in small- and medium-sized enterprises. We are looking to renew this line once again. I very much hope that following the work we have done on the new European Health and Safety strategy here in Parliament – a report will shortly be appearing in my own name – on a proposal from the Commission for a multi-annual programme for high levels of health and safety in SMEs. I hope that will come forward in the coming year and give us a permanent legal base. My final point concerns B3-4106. This is a proposal for a new budget line in the names of Mr Howitt and Mr Andersson, although it was endorsed by the Committee on Employment as well. It seeks to give a solid base for support to social NGOs. It is very important that we do this to underpin civil dialogue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what has happened in recent years in Kosovo is a profound tragedy. On many occasions, we have condemned from this Chamber the outrages perpetrated upon the Kosovan Albanian people. Their suffering is inconceivable, and none of us can ever understand the scale of what they have experienced. We in the European Union are also guilty of not having succeeded in time in preventing Milosevic’s insane excursions so close to our own territory. The EU also has an important role to play in the reconstruction process. All democratic forces must be supported in order to facilitate the reconstruction and create a functioning and democratic civil society. The collective rape which has been committed against the Kosovan Albanian people cannot however justify the actions which have been reported on against civilians belonging to, among other groups, the Serbian minority, but also other minorities. If any kind of normality is to be achieved, all affected parties must feel secure in returning or in staying where they are. This applies to both the majority and the minority. The persecutions, and in certain cases murders, of Serbs which have occurred are therefore entirely to be condemned and must cease. They do not carry the peace process forward. The outrages committed against KFOR personnel are also unacceptable and, on behalf of my Group (the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party), I should like strongly to condemn these. I should also like to appeal to all parties to cease committing such outrages and to lay down their weapons and together embark upon the long and difficult road to peace. I plead for all parties and organisations to work together for a better and brighter future in Kosovo, a future where all can hopefully live together. IN THE CHAIR: MR INGO FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for straying away from your usual subjects in order to take an interest in the problem of services of general interest, which is so important to the citizens of Europe. Following the completion of the consultations on the Green Paper, you reported on the general consensus on the need for clarification and legal clarity, as Mr Langen has just said. However, has any consensus been reached on the need for democratic clarity mentioned by Mrs Flautre? What Parliament was asking for in its resolution – and it did not, in fact, do so unanimously, as I think we would all agree – was that the interpretation of the Court of Justice or the Commission should not be the only prevailing interpretation with regard to clarification on the subject of acceptable state aids, or in order to define the correct interpretation of Article 86. What we need is a debate, in the context of the codecision procedure, which will make it possible to carry out evaluations on a case-by-case basis, since it is true that everyone perceives the evidence as a function of his or her historical or national experience. Thus as far as all services of general interest which are the responsibility of regional or local bodies are concerned, it is clear that it is not the task of the Community to intervene. Do people realise, however, that in other countries, both Member States and third countries, the evidence may show that there are national public services which have operated very efficiently up to now? Moreover, many people would consider, as regards the effects of liberalisation in areas such as rail transport – for example in a country with which you are familiar – or in areas like energy and electricity, that it is not entirely apparent that it is absolutely necessary to make competition rules alone the be all and end all of the system. Nor is it apparent that the calculation of State aids and compensation, whether legitimate or not, should be made the subject of a debate. We believe, therefore, that there should be a democratic debate. Mr Langen and his friends very often quote Article 86(3) in order to prove that something is the responsibility of the Commission, but they fail to mention Article 86(2), which lays down that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest are subject to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. It is this that is the subject of our discussions among ourselves, but it should also be the subject of a discussion between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, on a sector-by-sector basis.

Political group: PSE