GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Simpson, Commissioner, I hoped for a moment, just after seeing the news – and in fact things were looking a bit that way – that we would start with a debate on fox hunting, which will doubtless prove to be an extremely lively debate in Britain’s House of Commons this evening. We are also going to be discussing dangerous matters here. We highlighted one particular aspect recently at any rate, that of the flight time of pilots, and we also put questions to the Commissioner on the subject at an earlier stage. I am delighted that a situation has arisen in the meantime in which the partners have had it pointed out to them once again that they still have the chance to enter into consultation or reach agreements. If they do not do so then, as others have already said, this will automatically mean asking the Commission to draw up legislation in this area which will at least prevent accidents from occurring as a result of pilots spending too long at the controls. Research from which we once obtained answers now takes too long, and these negotiations could speed this up, and perhaps in time we will gain an even better understanding of what all the important factors might be. One aspect that we did not raise during the discussions, because it only came into play later on, is the one that we have also tabled an amendment on, namely that of long haul flights. It is becoming increasingly apparent – and claims to this effect are now being made not only in Australia, but also in England, concerning British Airways – that long haul flights can cause people to develop thromboses. We cannot yet be completely certain of this, nor do we have all the relevant facts in our possession yet, but we recognise the seriousness of the situation all the same, and wonder if it would not be sensible to request the Commission – via an amendment in this case, otherwise we will do so using other means – to come up with some initiatives on this front. Finally, and this is something we have given no thought to hitherto, there is the fact that some aviation companies with large aircraft are starting to fly at a higher altitude, which also produces symptoms of illness. We will revisit this issue at a later stage.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the problem of food security and famine faced by 20% of the world's population is, without doubt, a blot on the copybook of modern civilisation and proves that capitalism is unable to resolve even basic problems. The salient features of this report are a hypocritical interest in the people and farmers of developing countries, wishful thinking and contradictions and its ultimate purpose is to offer those responsible for the problem an alibi so that they can continue with the very policy which is exacerbating the problem. The objective of the proposed draft is to resolve the food security problem and it sets an interim date of 2015 for halving the number of people forced to live on a dollar a day. This objective is cancelled out by CAP reforms, which cut Community agricultural output in order to bring it into line with the international market, as defined by the WTO rather than mankind's food requirements. Why? Because, according to the prevailing view in the European Union, food is not a commodity that meets various needs, it is a commodity that guarantees huge profits for the food industry and multinationals. With its endless reforms of the CAP, the European Union is becoming more and more product-deficient, ruining farmers and, at the same time, forcing developing countries, with extortionate agreements and price mechanisms, to sell their agricultural produce at knock-down prices, tightening the noose around the neck of their people and protecting the multinationals' profits. The solution is not to abolish subsidies in developed countries, ruining their farmers and bringing them into line with farmers in developing countries, but to maintain a parity in international trading relations between developed and developing countries in practice, so as to improve their standard of living, reduce their foreign debt and increase their overall domestic output. The wishful thinking and contradictions in the report reach the height of hypocrisy in the proposal to fund genetically modified crops for developing countries, to be supplied by various multinationals and never mind the consequences. We know from experience that famine is a political and social problem, not a technical problem. We have the productive potential and wherewithal to feed the entire world and still take care of the environment and public health, but not under the current social system, by which I mean the prevailing capitalist system. This report keeps to the standard formula and offers no positive suggestions to mitigate the global food problem. On the contrary, the measures it proposes will exacerbate the problem, which will be compounded by serious risks to the environment and public health and the dependency of developing countries on multinationals in the developed world. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
When, in the fifties and sixties of the last century, nuclear fission was promoted as an inexhaustible source of energy for the future, scarcely a thought was given to the waste. The radioactivity of that material takes a long time to diminish and can last for tens of thousands of years at a lower level. This insoluble problem of waste should be a compelling reason to refrain from any further use of nuclear fission. Instead, pressure is mounting to increase underground storage capacity for this hazardous material, for example in the underground salt domes in the Dutch province of Drenthe. In June 2003, I asked the European Commission for clarification on the subject of plans to make it compulsory for Member States of the EU to use geological disposal sites for the permanent disposal of the most hazardous forms of radioactive waste from 2018. In reply, I was told that a study on the evaluation of the functioning of geological containment systems had shown that all the European countries have a suitable subsoil of suitable clay, salt or crystalline rock strata. In addition, the possibility now seems to be left open of regarding this waste as a commodity that must be allowed in to all Member States of the EU without an import licence by virtue of the free movement of goods. Since Parliament does not have the authority to prohibit this, the only remaining way of contesting imports is via the Court of Justice of the EC. As far as I am concerned, this is reason enough to vote against this whole directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Whilst the report itself states that ‘the lack of jobs is the problem for more than 18 million unemployed people in the EU and not insufficient occupational mobility’, the only solution it proposes is meaningless phrases such as ‘to bring the world of work and education systems closer together’. And, when it does come up with something more tangible – ‘to enable innovative enterprises to be set up’ – this announces assistance not for the victims of unemployment but for those responsible for it. What good is mobility, however, if it simply makes the remaining unemployed more mobile? Unemployment affects every country in Europe and the relocation of the unemployed will not create a single new job, only more competition between job-seekers. And when the report discusses a policy intended to enable ‘workers and job-seekers to become highly skilled’, this is only a cynically worded desire for bosses in the European Union to have the most highly-qualified unemployed people in the world! In order to prevent further unemployment, we must have binding measures to prevent mass redundancies. In order to create new jobs, public services that are useful to the community as a whole must take on new staff instead of reducing numbers. (Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish, informally but nonetheless from the heart, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Evans and Mrs Martens, as well as the draftspersons of the opinion, because to my mind, these issues have not been addressed so directly, sincerely and authentically for a very long time. I believe this to be political honesty, even if it is not pleasant to hear. We have spoken many times about mobility and the shortcomings that exist in its regard. I would say that in Europe we are currently living in a climate of considerable moral fraud. Fraud, not necessarily in the eyes of the law, but certainly moral fraud, because we are sending students to other countries and then we give no recognition to their studies and nor do we give them certificates. This is moral fraud, in which we are willing partners. What can we do? I think that we can do a great deal. As the Commission and Parliament, we can demand compliance from programmes that are funded by the Commission. We cannot allow universities not to recognise qualifications. Europe’s universities, in France, Spain and elsewhere, are autonomous and have the power to decide whether they will recognise diplomas and the subjects that have been studied. Universities that do not comply, however, must forfeit their subsidies. There must be clear checks and monitoring, even if only of a sample, and above all, a web site, where students can register their complaints. This is not expensive at all. We are not only protecting the rights of young people, since the same applies to researchers. It is pointless to talk about lifelong learning if we ignore researchers. Mrs Reding, Mr Busquin and his Directorate-General are not doing anything about the training of researchers, nor about the recognition of postgraduate qualifications or about doctors’ training. This has today created a void in the European Union and unless the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport addresses the problem, Europe will probably not be in a position to compete in the media, in the cinema or in research in information technology. Our human resources are our only future in a world in which there is no more valuable commodity than knowledge. We cannot allow this field to be taken away from us, even if this makes things uncomfortable in terms of the European Parliament working closely with the Commission. I think we should ask Mr Prodi to do everything possible to ensure that young people studying abroad do not feel like orphans and that researchers are not left without support, at the mercy of what their rectors decide.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, here too we find a similar lack of logic, and so I ask that, by analogy with paragraph 13, the following words, which I shall now read out, should be deleted: ‘including the completion of the transatlantic market’. I also ask that the following be deleted: ‘aimed at achieving the free movement of goods, capital, service and persons’. In this instance, too, I ask for Mr Brok's agreement to this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you very much for your consideration; great things are currently going on in my group, and so we had to be there. I would like to extend very warm thanks to the Irish presidency of the Council. In these days, we are witnessing history being made, and it is the Irish presidency that is making it. Through its shrewd and prudent conduct of the negotiations, whereby it is nevertheless boldly pursuing its objective, it has been able to put the Constitution back on the table. I would like to thank them warmly for this. I believe that we can still see a few places in which substantial negotiation will still be necessary. The Taoiseach, as the President-in-Office of the Council, has also made this clear with his points – first six of them and then a further 22. I would like once again – like many speakers – to make it clear that the budget right, and the associated Financial Perspective, is the prerogative of any parliament. I hope that this will be remembered in the negotiations. We have also sought this Constitution in order that an enlarged EU should have the capacity for action. We have succeeded in getting double majority accepted in principle; now, though, we must also have figures for the double majority, so that it enables greater decision-taking power. Thirdly, I believe, precisely in the case of majority voting in the Council, that it must be ensured that we insist on majority voting in particular in the areas in which our citizens are particularly threatened because of terrorist actions, namely justice and internal policy. Just to mention here three important areas in this context. I would also like to point out, however, that we, in this Parliament, should make joint efforts with the Commission to support the Irish presidency. If it were to be confirmed that Mr Barnier has become the French Foreign Minister – which I regard as good news – I would be glad if, because of its importance, his position in the Intergovernmental Conference were to be reallocated to President Prodi himself in the next few months, in order thereby to underline the fact that the Commission, too, is right behind the process. IN THE CHAIR: MR COXPresident

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too would like to congratulate you on the way in which you have conducted this difficult session and I would just like to say something factual to my colleague, Mr Meijer. I have been in this House for 21 years in all, although only 6 of those as a parliamentarian. I have taken part in every Friday session for 21 years, even when I had another job and was not a delegate. In this regard, I would also like to thank the staff who work so exceptionally on Fridays. However, irrespective of that, I would like to say that I have repeatedly seen such attempts over these 21 years. For this reason we introduced a quorum for determining the quorum because we wanted to rescue Fridays. That is how all this came about. However, I would like to say to Mr Meijer that at some point it was also decided that we would pass legislative resolutions from Tuesday to Thursday and not on Fridays, for which the quorum is not prescribed as compulsory, when we would deal with issues which are not controversial so that resolutions which are not controversial, but important nevertheless, can be passed. That was the consensus, and this consensus was reached here. Perhaps it is a healthy shock and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf is perhaps right. But I would ask you to clearly understand that Friday was never intended for legislative resolutions. These resolutions are not legislative. They are, however, important and they are consensual. We should therefore be able to pass them peacefully and in a dignified manner, and that is why, at the end of the day, we have passed them peacefully and in a dignified manner.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know whether Mr Wim van Velzen is present in the Chamber. I would like him to hear my speech, but, in any case, I feel it necessary to inform you and all the Members that the comments made by Mr van Velzen about myself were unfounded. Mr van Velzen has criticised me twice in this House, in my absence. According to him, I was not consistent and correct in upholding human rights while I was in Cuba with Mr Wiebenga and Mrs Eriksson for a meeting of the Interparliamentary Union. I would like to say that, at the very moment when Mr van Velzen was making this point in this House – at about 5 p.m. on Monday in Strasbourg, which was 11 a.m. in Cuba – I was talking to Mr Elizardo Sánchez, the director of the Cuban Committee for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, who, in the hall of his house, was showing me the photographs he had taken with José Maria Aznar, Felipe González and our fellow Member, Mário Soares. Moreover, together with Mr Sánchez were all the representatives of the Cuban opposition. Now, this is a fact, not empty words. The delegation of the European Parliament represented this institution correctly, meeting with all the organisations of the Cuban democratic opposition even though we were not bound to do so by duty. I am not asking Mr van Velzen to apologise because there is no need. I would like to thank all the Members, my group Chairman and Mr Seguro for what they said, but I am sure that there will be no need next time. Should I be criticised over human rights in the future, there will be no need for Mr Barón Crespo or Mr Seguro to take the floor because Mr Wim van Velzen will be the first to rise in this House. I repeat – he does not need to apologise – next time, he will be the one to defend me against any totally unfounded accusations or criticism. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are, very confusingly, a large number of translations of item 14. It is apparent from its context that it is about the United Nations rather than the United States, and that must be made clear. Neither the English nor the German translations get it right; you have to go back to the Spanish version, which makes it perfectly clear that it is the United Nations that is meant, the subject being international organisations. That has to be borne in mind, and it is perhaps important as we come to the vote.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to express my full support for the report on which we are about to vote, particularly for its comprehensive approach to the sustainable development strategy, as defined at Lisbon and, then, more specifically, at Gothenburg: it is not a formula for lumping economic, employment and environmental objectives together under one umbrella but an integrated approach which orients sectoral and horizontal policies towards a new concept of development. In practice, this will allow us to discharge our responsibility towards future generations and the countries whose development is lagging behind. I would like to focus briefly on the instruments necessary for the practical implementation of this strategy. If we genuinely adopt the approach that quality of social conditions and of the environment are central rather than secondary to growth and that is an essential factor in competitiveness, the most appropriate implementation instrument would appear to be the method of open coordination, although it does need to be strengthened and streamlined, as the report states, particularly as regards the involvement of the European Parliament, which, moreover, needs to be better, much better equipped in this regard. The success of such a policy depends on the genuine participation of all the institutional levels and all the social players. Without this widespread committed involvement, development will not be sustainable. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to sound the alarm, and in this I am supported, inter alia, by the Civil Society Contact Group. The preliminary draft Constitutional Treaty presented by the Chairman of the Convention does not contain any reference to the concept of sustainable development. If we do not reinvigorate what has already been affirmed by the Treaty and at Gothenburg, it will be a genuine cultural regression, a step backwards which, not least, will reduce Europe’s influence as a global player.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, knock on any mud hut in any poor country and ask the poor family inside what it needs most of all. There is only one answer: water. Not democracy. Not human rights. Not medicines. Nothing else, just water. If the European Union has allocated EUR one billion for water aid – and I believe Commissioner Nielson has been instrumental in this – I must congratulate the EU and the Commissioner. What a fantastic job. This is what these people need. Sadly, it is not enough. We need to do more and I ask the Commissioner to please make sure that this Parliament has a say in formulating water aid policy so that it is not lost in the clouds like the EDF. Parliament needs to be involved. I want this to happen. I hope you will assure us of this because I do not want my colleague here to persuade the Group to vote against the Lannoye report tomorrow. I understand what you are doing and I have confidence in it. I would like to say a quick word about trade. The poor countries need to process their products, not simply to export the raw products so that the value added is not received by them. That is the key to trade. I know Commissioner Nielson understands this and I know he is working for it. I hope he will do more.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, paragraph 5, where it says 'to sign and ratify' should read 'to ratify or accede to the Rome Statue' because at this stage it is no longer possible to sign the Statute. So paragraph five should read as follows: 'Calls on the Member States to appeal to all UN members to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court'. (The House gave its assent to the tabling of the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0023/2002) by Mr Napolitano, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on relations between the European Parliament and the national parliaments in European integration [2001/2023(INI)] Before the vote

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in stressing the excellent quality of the work carried out by Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Böge, I would like to dwell on one aspect and take advantage of the presence of Commissioner Byrne. Clearly, our goal has to be total elimination, but we feel that this would be extremely difficult as the costs of incinerating the large numbers of animals which die on farms are objectively huge. Consequently, the economic burdens and the amount of technical organisation involved could be extensive, and so could the environmental impact of such large-scale incineration carried out at extremely high temperatures. In this sense, we ought to ask the Commission – and insist on a reply – whether realistic estimates of the quantities of material to be incinerated are already available to us, whether they have already been made or whether this still remains to be done, according to the various classification procedures of the States, together with an evaluation of the resulting organisational economic burdens, with subsequent referral to Parliament. It is therefore essential to prevent the adoption of different, uncoordinated paths by individual Member States from causing substantial distortion of competition and disproportion in the treatment reserved for producers. It is necessary to provide for the adoption of harmonised financial support measures, lay down common organisational guidelines and use applied research measures to develop new disposal technologies with less environmental impact which allow the use of forms of materials recycling which respect consumer safety requirements. The development of common guidelines should allow firmer, more balanced and, therefore, more effective responses. For example, we consider that setting up mandatory disposal consortia according to the model already laid down by the legislation of some Member States could be a practical response to the need to limit the economic impact of disposal operations on breeders and, at the same time, thanks to the increase in the degree of social control over the proper use of the service, to the need to consolidate consumer and environmental guarantees. We conclude that the adoption of the excellent regulation in question will require the development of a combination of initiatives, research and analysis, but also regulation and standardisation, and we hope that Parliament will associate itself with these measures.

Political group: PPE-DE