GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mrs Smet on her excellent work. The scoreboard on the application of the Social Agenda must allow the progress made in terms of the application of that Agenda to be monitored, but it must also act as a rapid alarm call when there are delays in the implementation of the measures announced. I believe that the rapporteur has been able to harmonise both aspects in her report. Furthermore, in its application, the Social Agenda should not, in my humble opinion, be treated as an unaltered or unalterable programme. Designed by people for people, I see it as an evolving programme which demands subsequent adjustments, as the mid-term assessment of the progress achieved, to be carried out in 2003, will demonstrate. Commissioner, much has been done in terms of the development of the European social model, but I would venture to say that there remains much to be done, and in different fields. Sex equality policy, measures to combat social exclusion and poverty, policies on the integrating of disabled people socially and taking advantage of the capacities they do have, and opting for life-long learning and training and, with it, the need to adapt to the new forms of work and the reconciliation of work with family life. In any event, there is a demand which I would like to highlight and draw the Commission’s attention to. I am referring to the new forms of work, with the new risks inherent in them and therefore the concern about the forms of participation in productive processes by means of productive externalisation or decentralisation – subcontracting, the presence of freelancers, independent workers – in the field of the risks of the contracting company, etc. Hence the need for the application of measures aimed at preventing risk – inherent in all forms of work, but sometimes imperceptible and blurred in the context of these new forms of production – being converted into work accidents. I believe that these measures would be viable for all workers, employers and society.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Ustica tragedy – with more than 80 dead, almost 20 years of inquiries and more than 15 victims linked to this tragedy either during or after the inquiries – brings to mind three crucial points: the transparency, accountability and arrogance of a certain type of military power, but not only military power. In order to perhaps understand this tragedy better, I will also refer to the tragedy which occurred at Cermis in the Dolomites, where an American military plane cut through a cablecar cable. Twenty people plunged to the ground in the cablecar and died. In this case, we know what happened because the plane was seen, but up till now, even in the Cermis tragedy, it is still not at all clear where the blame lies. Firstly, I wonder whether Italy, despite it being strategically important in Europe, is the best place to carry out military experiments, tests or even training. In my opinion, the Nevada desert is much more suitable because Italy has too many inhabitants. And it has to be said that the victims’ loved ones have the right to know why, how and when their children, parents or relatives died, and to this end, we join them in asking for help and complete transparency. The Governments of Italy, France, Great Britain and the United States as well as the Secretary-General of the UN must help us to shed light on these tragedies, especially the Ustica tragedy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the fight against terrorism is necessary, but not all means are permitted. That is a very simple basic principle. You cannot play games with democratic legitimacy and the credibility of politics. If under the guise of the fight against terrorism the European Union were to permit excessive violation of citizens’ rights, we would be sliding towards the breakdown of the rule of law. If, as the previous speaker appears to be advocating, we lean too far in our sympathies for the airlines' difficulties, then we shall also be seriously off beam. This is the way things would go if Parliament were to acquiesce in the agreement between the Commission and the United States. That according to Commissioner Bolkestein it should now all of a sudden not be allowed to be called an agreement does not make things any better. After all, the European Commission has overstepped the mark in this dossier and that is especially disappointing of Commissioner Bolkestein, who this very week has very cheerfully announced his candidacy as member of the European Commission for a second term – remarkable. The European Commission, as I said, has overstepped the mark. In the first place it has failed to keep to its own plan to test its own action in advance against Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is under an obligation to uphold existing European legislation, in respect of data protection in this case. As earlier speakers have already explained in detail I shall not repeat it everything is inconsistent with everything else. Instead of performing its duties properly, the Commission has acted like a mayor in time of war, yielding to American pressure – also known as blackmail – in order, supposedly, to prevent something worse happening. This action lacks any legal foundation, is completely non-transparent and uncontrollable. If the Commission had demonstrated greater political courage and had brought in Parliament in good time, a decent debate could have taken place regarding the scope within the fight against terrorism and the limits of data transfer. The Commission must therefore retrace its steps and take action to defer the agreement's entry into force. If the agreements are properly tested against the European rules, a proper agreement can be concluded rather than this half-baked effort that jeopardises legal security. I am therefore especially pleased that in the resolution we shall be voting on tomorrow we shall also be opening up the route to the European Court, because it is not the first time that the Commission has tried to sidetrack Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. Regarding the questions that will shortly be put to the Commission and the Council, you will be aware that the French Government, confronted by the fuel crisis that has gripped France along with the rest of Europe, took a number of measures yesterday which will drastically alter the conditions of competition and the basis of the fight against the greenhouse effect, and which will, therefore, have an immediate and serious impact on Europe. Mrs Loyola de Palacio had an extremely interesting article published in the French press this morning on this European crisis. Would it be possible for her and/or the Commissioner for Competition to speak during this part-sitting in order to tell us how the Commission intends to react to the fuel crisis, and how the Commission and the Council intend to prevent an outbreak of fiscal dumping in Europe and prepare Europe to deal with this crisis?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Therapeutic cloning, which provides new ways of treating certain diseases, depends on the destruction of embryos, and although it is the technology that has been utilised most, and is therefore the most accessible, it is not the only technology and it is certainly not ideal. For this reason, I am calling for a legal ban at European level on creating human embryos by cloning, be it for therapeutic purposes or for reproductive purposes. Nevertheless, there should be two exceptions to this ban: supernumerary embryos and the 64 available cell lines. However, with regard to financing research, and in particular as regards the Sixth Framework Programme, which is the subject of the Caudron report, I believe that priority should be given to Community financing of research projects on the use of adult stem cells for therapeutic purposes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is no fault of mine if – probably because there has been a lot of talk about my dream of Mrs Roth-Behrendt during this past month – I dreamt about her again last night. It was a more restful dream than the previous one. Mrs Roth-Behrendt was in good health and leading an army of pensioners who were waving placards bearing the words 'Long live Mrs Roth-Behrendt'. I went up to them and asked them why they were carrying placards saying 'Long live Mrs Roth Behrendt' and not 'Long live Mr Fatuzzo'. They replied: 'We are pensioners who like to eat well, to eat steak with Brunello di Montalcino wine. Mrs Roth-Behrendt is ensuring that the beef we eat is healthy and we therefore admire her and are celebrating her victory'. Thus, I could not fail to vote for the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am very pleased that the President-in-Office of the Council is once again in this Chamber. But, with all due respect to you, Mr President-in-Office, in view of the fact that Sweden constantly promotes equal opportunities, I would have liked Secretary of State Ekström to be here. Yesterday she was at the joint meeting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. On the Bullmann report: The Lisbon Council resolved to turn the EU into the world’s most competitive area by the year 2010. Was that just an idle boast? Yet, with four million new jobs in four years, mostly highly qualified and ICT jobs, the signs are good. A new dynamic with more flexible labour markets has emerged, but not everybody is keeping pace. There are big difference between the regions, with high levels of employment and room for manoeuvre for enterprises in some regions but, in others, increasing unemployment causing people to leave their homes on economic grounds. But we want economic and social cohesion in the Community and active labour market policies, which are reflected in the four pillars of the Luxembourg process. The priority is clear: the promotion of innovative SMEs. We have what it takes to shape the future and create jobs, but we need to dismantle bureaucratic, legal and tax obstacles and facilitate access to risk capital. By implementing the directives in the NAPS, the employment rate within the EU can be raised to 70%. Quantum leaps need to be made in education and training. Priority should be given to the upward revaluation of vocational training, the implementation of a concept of life-long learning, better framework conditions for cross-border activities, the promotion of mobility through joint training programmes for young people and pan-European recognition of qualifications. The Hughes procedure brought together the findings of the Bullmann report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Cocilovo report in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Although the details may be assessed somewhat differently, this final report merits our support.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, may I say that I fully endorse your speech earlier in which you said that one of our jobs is to provide the public with information about the work of the institutions. Can I invite you therefore under Rule 38 (Statements explaining Commission decisions) to ask the Commission at the end of today's agenda to come to this House and explain the decision that was taken yesterday to fine the French football authorities a derisory £650.00 for a clear breach of Community rules. It is very difficult for anyone to understand what that message was from the Commission, apart from to say that it is good news for ticket touts and bad news for football fans to suggest that people can actually get away with breaking the law providing they are prepared to throw a few coppers towards the European Commission later in the process. So, may I ask you to invite the Commission, at the end of today's proceedings, to come and explain that decision so that ordinary people can actually try and understand the thought processes which, I have to say, completely confound me.

Political group: PSE
The development of a market for more ecological products is, of course, an admirable environmental policy objective. In this respect, I can only support the European Commission’s approach set out in its Green Paper on integrated product policy. However, we cannot imagine an environmental policy that is totally detached from all economic and social considerations. In this sense, I welcome the development of the ‘European eco-label’ that assesses every product against a list of environmental liabilities in accordance with strict criteria, which are yet to be defined. In my view, it is wiser to favour incentive measures over penalties. But whatever instrument is chosen, I think it is essential to ensure no penalties are imposed on small- and medium-sized companies and craft industries that practice traditional production methods. To assist those adapting to these structures, we must consider financial support and tax incentives. Practising price correctness by including environmental costs when calculating the real cost of products is also an interesting proposal, on the condition that this measure does not have the effect of excluding the most deprived consumers or, at least, consumers who are the most vulnerable from a social point of view. With these reservations, I voted in favour of the report by Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo. - Alyssandrakis report (A5-0451/2001)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the topic of violence is given priority status in this Parliament and that is how it should continue to be. Further to your appeal and your expression of sympathy with the families of the victims of violence, we too would like to show our solidarity with all those who are protesting today against the violence of ETA in so many places in the Basque country. That is why, after approval of this agenda, we intend to hold a small, peaceful demonstration, which will take a few minutes, in front of the Parliament building, together with all colleagues and delegates in this House who wish to attend.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you, Mr President, for everything that you have said, but allow me to also stress my point because Parliament has also followed all the Commission and Council initiatives to speed up the implementation of the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages. You referred to the fresh measures taken regarding the IMO, but the reason why Parliament has proposed that flags of convenience be banned is that we are all well aware, in the debates that we have had following maritime disasters, that the nature of flags of convenience is that in the event of problems, it is incredibly difficult to locate those responsible. We are well aware that, throughout the chain that links the flag, the State, the captain of the boat and the various crews, it is no longer possible to determine in the end who we are going to ask to be held criminally and financially responsible, which is the reason for Parliament’s proposal. I must stress this. It is true that the Commission should take the initiative, but I would like to know how, as President-in-Office of the Council, you are going to support this proposal by Parliament.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by pointing out that the protection of the citizens and their rights is one of the fundamental principles of our democracies. I believe that if we safeguard the rights of the citizens and provide them with sufficient protection, we can also call upon them to discharge their responsibilities. In my opinion, this should be the main consideration. We must therefore consolidate these rights, and the way to do so is through the right of petition, which provides the individual citizen with the possibility of appealing to a dedicated body which can then carry out controls, whether it is the Parliamentary Committee on Petitions or the European Ombudsman. I greatly welcome the cooperation between the two institutions, which I feel has been an extremely positive development. The network is up and running and is constantly improving, and I therefore feel that access must be further facilitated. Improvement has been possible thanks to the use of new technologies, but I believe that access is facilitated when information on accessibility is distributed as widely as possible. Therefore, we still need to do much more in terms of disseminating information. It would be useful, for example, for all the publications issued by the European institutions for the public to read to contain, in future, a section on how to contact the Ombudsman and how to contact the Committee on Petitions, so that the individual citizens are provided with the possibility of receiving help at those times when they consider that the public administrations are not doing their duty and that their rights have been infringed, and to ensure that they are aware of the existence of this facility. This would help us to improve our structures because, in actual fact, if we are aware of real or alleged malfunctions, we will be able, not least as Members of the European Parliament, to take appropriate measures to address them. I will end on a very personal note. In 1995, Mr Söderman, I voted for the occupant of the office adjacent to mine, who was not yourself but Mr Siegbert Alber. It is therefore with even greater conviction that I thank you most sincerely for your work and for your efforts on behalf of the citizens. Thank you and good luck for the rest of your term of office.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the shadow rapporteur, I wish to raise four points on the Gill report. Firstly, on political party funding – the matter just raised by Mr van Dam – my Group considers that this funding should be in Parliament's, not the Commission's budget. The reason is that we can be accountable: the rules are already set down and agreed between the three institutions. I understood that there was also a move by the Council of Ministers and the Commission to move this budget towards Parliament's financing. It is right and appropriate to show that we are responsible and accountable. An amendment has been tabled and I urge Members to vote – perhaps against their own groups – for Parliament to have control of the political party funding budget. Secondly, on buildings, the Bureau has made too many decisions without referring back to the appropriate committee – the Committee on Budgets. I welcome Paragraph 40 of the Mrs Gill's report, which I broadly support. That calls on the Secretary-General to submit a report by 1 June 2004 outlining 'the functional justifications for the new building projects'. I hope that report will include the proposals for two new conference rooms here. The United Kingdom Conservatives and Socialists are opposed to those two conference rooms, as they would spoil the very pleasant entrance to the European Parliament by the flags. There is no functional justification. The conference rooms – in particular the large ones – are under-utilised. There is more than enough room, even with the enlargement countries, to provide all the necessary facilities. That is a very important matter and, in future, we at least will be requiring functional justification before spending is approved. I should like to draw attention to a very positive amendment – of which I am sure Mrs Gill will approve – to Paragraph 28. This clarifies the movement towards more facilities to cover multilingualism, which is particularly important for enlargement. It concerns electronic guidance, computer workstations and directions to rooms. I know that as a new Member three years ago I had great difficulty in Brussels and Strasbourg even in finding rooms. Think of the language difficulties for Members from the new countries. Therefore, monitors and permanently-installed signs scrolling through the various languages would be a very important addition. Finally, there is a reference in the report to the Court of Auditors. It does very important work and needs extra resources, a suggestion I fully endorse.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wholeheartedly support this report which focuses its attention on the importance of local employment markets. When employment rates are considered, we all too often concentrate our minds on the macroeconomic environment whereas individual local employment markets contribute considerably to the overall well-functioning and dynamism of the economy. As the EU increasingly focuses it attention on employment, largely under the auspices of the Lisbon Strategy, the call for a bottom-up approach is most welcome. Indeed, local operators who have knowledge of local conditions are best placed to devise any necessary changes that local economies might need to make. This report also comes highly recommended for its close attention to the all of the component parts of local economies: the promotion of female entrepreneurship, for example, is relatively innovative and could pave the way for new kinds of innovation and economic growth. - Gillig report (A5-0251/2002)

Political group: PSE
PPE-). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to move, on behalf my group, in accordance with Rule 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, that this House should decide whether the joint motion for a resolution tabled by the and groups should be put to the vote before the other resolutions. (Applause) My justification for this is as follows. On 14 November we submitted a motion for a resolution to the administration. I have here the electronic record confirming its transmission. Therefore our original motion has priority. In accordance with Rule 37(4) of the Rules of Procedure, a subsequently tabled joint motion for a resolution replaces the original motion. That means that the subsequently tabled joint motion is regarded as that submitted first and should be put to the vote first. In the event that the House does not follow this procedure, I wish to ask the President to pronounce that the amendments tabled by the Liberals, the and the Communists are inadmissible in accordance with Article 140(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that only amendments that have not already been tabled once may be tabled. As the content of the joint motion for a resolution tabled by these groups is exactly the same as those amendments, only one of the two can be admissible. It does not make sense for us to follow the voting list, because we would then have to vote on the same content twice. That is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Rules of Procedure. (Applause)

Political group: PSE