GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Article 1 of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the dignity of the person must be respected and protected. Article 3 states that in the cases of medicine and biology, the following principles must be respected: the prohibition of eugenic practices, specifically those that are aimed at human selection; the prohibition of making the human body or any of its parts a source of profit and the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings. Such formal statements are not necessarily sufficient. Scientific advances are mind-boggling. The speed at which scientific research progresses is sometimes difficult for average humans, and even for politicians, to comprehend. This rhythm of progress in the techno-sciences, that is, in the marriage of science and technology, raises ethical questions that have major consequences. This applies above all to the new mastery of living mechanisms. In this respect, the British government’s proposal to refer legislation which seeks to authorise some scientific research into therapeutic cloning, including the human embryo, to the parliament at Westminster has led to all sorts of reactions and comments, both positive and negative. Certain political groups in this Parliament are proposing a vote on a supposedly ‘urgent’ motion for a resolution. The Socialists are of the view that such issues are too important for the future of medicine, biology and human society, and because they are so important, this Parliament should carry out a more thorough job than a resolution adopted at top speed. This is not the gunfight at the OK Corral: This is not about being the first to draw. This morning’s discussions on the monitoring centre for industrial change showed that this Parliament is capable of voting on everything and its opposite in the space of a few minutes. The Socialists are unhappy with this type of vote, which looks more like Russian roulette than serious parliamentary work. We would like to see a calm discussion of a vital problem, covering the opportunities opened up by genetic engineering and also the lines that cannot be crossed in this field. This raft of issues concerns various standing committees in this Parliament. This is clearly a cross-sector issue, which deserves to be dealt with by a special temporary committee, which has the task of calling in experts and of holding hearings of opposing views so that we can have an objective debate, which is not skewed in advance by deeply-embedded prejudices. I shall end, Mr President, by asking you, by asking all of us, to take this task seriously. We are prepared to withdraw our motion for a resolution if the other groups do the same and to try to work constructively together.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for me, citizenship of the EU is something like a building block towards enhanced integration, but also of course towards our citizens having a greater sense of their European identity. Looking at the basis for it, though, we find just six paragraphs referring to citizenship of the EU, and, on reading these, we find relatively few rights attached to it, which range from participation in local elections or in those for this Parliament to diplomatic representation or the right of petition. That, though, can be nothing more than a beginning if we really want to create EU citizenship. The task we have to set ourselves in future is a political one, that of making EU citizenship, as it now is, meaningful and breathing life into it. We are also called on to give thought to how we can actually extend the rights enjoyed by EU citizens. This report turns the spotlight on our present deficits and also makes very definite proposals where changes are necessary. I very warmly congratulate the rapporteur on the attitude he has taken to this refined analysis and on the very constructive proposals he has made. There is a need for measures to demolish, and quickly, the barriers which exist at present and still hamper the freedom of movement and of residence of people who are called EU citizens, which do not guarantee all EU citizens access to the law and to justice to the extent that they desire, and which, above all, hamper the mobility of students in schools and higher education, of apprentices, and also of teachers and the workforce. What use to us is the best Leonardo programme for the training of professionals, if such things as social benefits are not recognised or if there are yet other barriers standing in the way of real mobility, or if qualifications from university or vocational training in other states are not accorded the recognition that has long been overdue? We have to think about informing people about what their rights as citizens of the EU actually are and about how they can best make use of them. We have to call for the necessary work to be done in schools and in information offices – the latter including those run by the Commission and by Parliament. Much, then, lies ahead of us. We still have to do intensive work in order that those endowed with citizenship of the EU can feel that they really are its citizens. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Almost all the reports on the twelve countries that are candidates for membership of the European Union express satisfaction with the progress that these countries have made in order to fulfil the necessary conditions. The rapporteurs choose to ignore the fact that all of these countries are riddled with social inequality, that the standard of living of the majority of the population is very low and that unemployment is rife in all of these areas. They underestimate the ethnic minority problem. They say nothing about the resurgence of nationalist tendencies, and do not even bother to name the large Turkic-speaking minorities in the Balkans, and the ethnic Russians in the Baltic States, in order to avoid having to comment on the ordeal imposed on such people as a result, for example, of their being denied the right to citizenship. Even if these countries, in particular those in Eastern Europe, are integrated, this will occur in line with the balance of power. By this I mean they will have a subordinate role in relation to the three great powers: Germany France and the United Kingdom, either individually or all together. The economies of these countries are already at the mercy of the law laid down by the great European trusts. Integrating these countries into the Union will do nothing to change the nature of these relationships in any way. So, whether we limit the European Union to 15 countries or enlarge it to 27, it will always be a creation designed to serve the interests of capital, and the workers of Europe have no hope of improving their situation. That is why we voted the way we did.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I think that the social policy agenda is positive for everyone. I think that harmonising the social policies of the different Member States cannot do anything other than benefit all Europeans. It will be particularly beneficial in all aspects relating to employment, which, since the Lisbon Summit, we know is a priority for the whole of the European Union. I would like to particularly stress the benefit which, in terms of employment, can be obtained by women through giving them improved access to employment with guarantees in terms of working time and salary. I think that there is also a great advantage, if we succeed in getting the directive applied, modified and updated, with regard to maternity leave: for women to receive help during maternity and for maternity to be protected when women have to continue working during that period. I also think that it will be very positive in terms of helping women to reconcile family and working life. It is going to enable women to continue in their jobs without neglecting their family obligations. Neither can we forget what the e-Europe initiative means for new jobs, new technologies and the information society, where I think women have an important role to play. These are new jobs where people can work from home with regulations that help to reconcile working life with family life. All these coordinated social policy actions will also help to combat poverty and social exclusion. I think that we should all welcome the arrival of this social policy agenda. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in response to what Mr Cohn-Bendit said, I would just like to say that personal actions are to be admired as long as they are for a good cause. This does not mean, however, that an institution is in any way exempt from carrying out its responsibilities. This must not, in any way, then be used as an excuse by the Council, which should do what we ask by tomorrow at the latest. Relating to Thursday 3 May: President. – The report by Lord Inglewood, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the accounts of certain types of companies, was only approved on 24 April. The debate could, therefore, be included in the agenda and the vote could take place at the second May part-session in Strasbourg. It seems that this proposal enjoys a very broad consensus. This means that the deadline for tabling amendments would be 12 noon on Thursday 10 May. (Parliament approved the proposal) Regarding the votes, the vote on Mr Colom i Naval’s report, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the adoption of the financial perspective, is to be added. You will recall that this vote was postponed at the sitting of 3 April. * * * Speeches relating to procedure

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Bowis report forms a solid basis for further work and I believe, Commissioner, that there is now not one single reason why you, so to speak, could not produce the legislative proposal tomorrow, for the large majority of Parliament is now agreed on the way forward. Mr Bowis, the fact that it is such a large majority, is partly and mainly thanks to you. You are an extremely skilled diplomat. I will not dwell on the heart of the matter, since we are all agreed on that. I would like to bring a few minor aspects to the fore. I have tabled an amendment which is not unimportant, in my view, although Mr Whitehead suggested it was redundant. The authority must be independent and that is why I think that ‘close ties’, as stated in Paragraph 12, should actually not be allowed, not with anybody – not with consumer associations or anybody else. I therefore believe that your Amendment No 11 and my Amendment No 17 are perfectly reconcilable. Secondly, in addition to the authority, there are a number of important things which need to happen. I would single out two of these: we urgently need PCB standards at European level, as well as a positive list of ingredients of animal feed. Commissioner, I would say that there is no time to lose and, ladies and gentlemen, our role in the European Parliament is also vital for, by studying the annual report and interviewing the director of the authority, we will need to ensure that the authority works, because if it does not, if it does not do its work properly, we will end up footing the bill politically speaking. I believe that is something which we will need to keep an eye on in the years ahead.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, I was aware, as you would expect, of your visit to Vigo, my birthplace, and I know that the city’s fishing sector, one of the largest in Galicia, in the Spanish State and in Europe, has just issued a set of suggestions concerning the duties and competences of this Agency, which I believe deserve a concrete answer from you. Furthermore, I believe that you should promote an open dialogue with the sector before defining the Agency’s regulations and I believe that this institution could provide the much-needed link between those working in the industry and the scientific institutions. In any event, I wish to ask you expressly whether the Commission has already received the proposal from the Spanish State to ensure that the Agency’s headquarters are established in Vigo and when you think it will be definitively established there.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission report before us is not merely necessary. It will bring a great deal of work in its train in the Member States. The rapporteur has taken a great deal of trouble about the analysis, and for that I am very grateful to him. The directive strikes me, though, as something of a patchwork rug. There are too many loopholes with national regulations crocheted in elsewhere, making individual interpretations possible and the whole thing impenetrable. What is most fundamentally at issue is the protection of workers, a cause which we have taken up. Both the Commission and the Member States, therefore, have to be urged not merely to adopt the definition and interpretation of particular concepts, but to check precisely on potential deviations from specific legal provisions, in order not to cause any confusion which might, at the end of the day, result in the opposite of what was actually intended. Most uncertainty in the Member States concerns the maximum permitted working time, although clear limitations are laid down in Article 6, Article 18, and in the final provisions. The possibility of also using collective contracts or agreements between the social partners to transpose the directive should be seen in a fundamentally positive light. All that is needed is for this to actually happen, and when it does, it must be completely in the spirit of the directive, without a back door or the possibility of evading its provisions at a halfway stage. It is also urgently necessary to reach a clearer definition of the concept of ‘standby duties’, and, above all in view of the judgment of the European Court of Justice, to implement it completely along those lines. The judgment in Luxembourg clearly brought out this directive's weaknesses, and it is regrettable that the Commission has to lag behind on this point. The Koukiadis report will be a great help in the work in hand. I hope we will actually find the points listed by Parliament still in the directive when the time comes to transpose it.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am a supporter of the general principles involved in regulating working time, for the benefit of workers in terms of health and safety considerations and, in the case of road transport, for the road safety/accident prevention benefits that will be achieved. I do believe that regulations of this nature must balance the acknowledged benefits against the practical realities faced by transport operators, especially in rural and island areas where no viable alternative to road transportation exists. The concession on limitation to night working is important to Scotland, where long road distances are unavoidable and where transport operators already suffer such disincentives as high fuel taxation and relatively poor road networks in many areas. Rapport Ghilardotti (A5-0026/2002)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have a proposal to make, because I can see the problem the honourable Member brought to our attention. Could the matter of safeguarding a person’s privacy become part of the job description of the European Network and Information Security Agency which is now being set up, so that the agency would follow developments in the area and afterwards say whether legislation is needed or not? It would be a professional authority that would do this at pan-European level. Could this be possible?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, between the devil of Milosevic and the deep blue sea of NATO: this is the feeling of most of the Serbian democratic opposition to Milosevic. Between the violence of Serbian paramilitary forces, the intimidation and violence of the KLA and NATO bombs falling from the sky: this is the sentiment of those Kosovo Albanian troops who chose to fight for their rights without resorting to violence. Against the NATO bombings and against nationalism and the homicidal and suicidal politics of Milosevic: this is the feeling of millions and millions of European men and women who hold the respect of human rights to be fundamental, wherever they have been violated: in Kosovo, Kurdistan, Palestine or Iran. These are the democratic, peaceful forces which should have been supported by the international community. Obviously, Milosevic had and has to be stopped, as the KLA had and has to be stopped, each responsible in different ways. Now, after NATO has destroyed and laid waste in the name of the defence of human rights, we must rebuild. We hope and wish to act in this Parliament so that construction takes place in such a way that human resources and the dignity of each side involved in the conflict are respected and valued during the process, and that colonisation by Europe or the United States World Bank is avoided. Kosovo must be reconstructed with its present and past inhabitants – both Albanian and Serbian – as protagonists. At the same time, Serbia and Montenegro and the infrastructures laid to waste and destroyed by air raids, must be rebuilt, and the damage to the environment investigated and remedied. The reconstruction of Kosovo must focus not only on the economy and trade, but also on the social, civil and democratic fabric. To achieve this, reconstruction must be carried out through the involvement of local communities, with exchanges between municipalities, universities, men and women of the European Union, Kosovo and the Republic of Yugoslavia. For the war to be truly erased from the picture, we must bring about reconciliation, create societies and build democracy. This is our challenge.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as you know the Cederschiöld report has been taken off Thursday’s agenda. That ought to mean that we have more time on Thursday. Since we will be very pressed for time in the topical and urgent debate, in view of the many matters to be addressed in an hour and a half, I simply wanted to ask whether the sessional services might not check to see whether we could have an extra half an hour for the topical and urgent debate so that there is sufficient speaking time. In general the way in which sittings have been managed in recent weeks seems to me to have been very chaotic. Last Thursday speaking times were extremely tight and then suddenly we had between one and one-and-a-half hours when there was nothing on the agenda and we had to wait for the vote. On Friday of this week we have one single item on the agenda. That is absolutely absurd. I really should like to ask that a review be carried out of the way in which sittings are managed.

Political group: PPE-DE
No, pour un fait personnel – on a personal matter. I do not know what that is in German, but you, as Vice-President, should. A personal attack has been made on me. Mr President, I have been in Parliaments for thirty-seven years, so I know what a personal attack is, and that one is permitted to respond to it. I ask you to let me have the floor, so that I may answer this personal attack. If you had listened to me, this matter would have been sorted out long ago! (FR) First of all, I was reproached, as a native of Luxembourg, for the fact that there are too many economic activities in Luxembourg. It is true that we create jobs, that we give jobs to the 100 000 people, including French, Belgian and German natives, who cross our borders to go to work every day. I do not see what is wrong with that. Another Member, also a , spoke of exemptions and derogations with regard to Luxembourg. I would ask him to tell me which exemptions and derogations he is talking about and specify each one. He cannot just bandy about gratuitous accusations. At the same time, the speakers who took the floor wish to protect the small activities in the Canary Islands. I would, however, be tempted to agree with Mr Bolkestein’s plans to control these small activities, in particular with regard to rum. People have approached me, Spaniards in particular, to say that there are no sugar cane plantations in the Canary Islands, that the raw materials are imported from South Africa, that Spanish rum-producing companies are equally guilty of discrimination. What is more, I can name two companies, Areucas and Artemi, which share 73% of the rum market in the Canary Islands, and I am sorry, Mr Bolkestein, but there are indeed distortions of competition. We shall meet again and we shall see who is right: whether it is I or he, he who so badly wants to eliminate distortions in competition within the single market. We shall talk about this again.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Moderate Party’s delegation to the European Parliament has voted against Mrs Smet’s report on the representation of women among the social partners of the European Union (A5-0279/2002). The principle of equal rights for all is one of the most important cornerstones of our society. Rights are, and shall remain, individual. The collectivisation of rights can be the first step towards the reduction of their importance. The European Parliament should as a matter of principle not pronounce on how independent organisations, such as employers organisations and trade unions, should be structured. This is up to them and their members. Otherwise, the Moderate delegation considers that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities should be abolished and that its business should be taken over by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I decided to speak in this debate when I read the truly excellent analysis of the current situation in Europe produced by the European Commission before the Lisbon Summit. It is true that the Lisbon Summit also represented something of a sea-change in attitudes towards the global society and in particular towards issues like e-commerce. At the same time there was a tension in Lisbon between the old world of the international s and the new world of those who have a slightly wider perspective. So the city of Henry the Navigator may become the city of Netscape the navigator, a new approach which I thoroughly welcome. The summit was variously described as a social summit and an e-summit and so on. Much was said about the economic and social policies that were supposed to emanate from Lisbon. The reality is that the European social model is now living in London and she is called Laetitia Casta. She is Marianne, the symbol of France but taxes in France are now so high that she now has to go and live in London despite the vastly increased taxation under Labour. Very soon now the government is about to raise GBP 16 billion through the sale of the third generation mobile telephone licences as Mr Suominen reminded us. There is tension around Europe but at the same time I detect a sea-change. I rarely speak in debates after summits but this is an important one. I therefore look forward to some genuine action from the European Commission. It is action not words that is needed. When I talk about words, I am thinking about words like “bench-marking” and “peer review”. I am sure there are not many people in this Chamber who understand what bench-marking or peer review means. Do not worry, it is meaningless. What actually matters is a light touch on the e-commerce directive, a light touch on telecommunications. Give people the freedom to use the Internet to their advantage, to their benefit, for social reasons, for educational reasons, for the disabled – all the benefits the Internet can give us. We do not need the heavy regulatory touch of the past. Please Mr Prodi, ignore your friends on the and stick with the new world not the old world.

Political group: PPE-DE