GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the resolution on space policy in accordance with everything I said in my position yesterday and, furthermore, because the amendments which we proposed against the use of space for military purposes and to serve defence and security policy were not accepted. We condemn the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (including New Democracy) which voted almost in its entirety against the amendments, as well as the stand taken by the group (including PASOK) which, while voting in favour of the amendment which accepted the principle of the use of space solely for peaceful purposes, at the same time voted against an identical amendment opposing the use of space for military activities! We believe that this inconstant behaviour is not the result of a split personality. It is simply an artifice, an attempt to muddy the waters, an alibi to cover their all-round support for the militarisation of the European Union and the militarisation of space.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should just like to comment on an amendment to be proposed tomorrow, which seeks to change the title of this report by removing the word ‘rights’. We sit in a parliament and we live in democracies. We have experienced two UN conferences, a conference on population in Cairo in 1994, and a conference on women in Peking in 1995. What did those two conferences say? On the one hand, that the question of controlling fertility and reproduction was a human right, and on the other, in 1995 in Peking, that it was a woman’s right. Human rights or women’s rights – they are still rights. We are therefore stating people’s rights, not controlling populations. In the e-mails and in the scores of letters that I receive, I discover that the only things being discussed are population control, women’s fertility, retirement for all, falling birth rates in our countries – we could also talk about birth rates, why not – and that is what I would call population control. That has nothing to do with rights. I believe, therefore, that the proposed amendment is quite representative of the conflict that we have here. If we accept that we are in a country as of right, we can go so far as to say what I myself say, namely that the right to contraception, to fertility control, is the habeas corpus of women. We said thirty years ago that our bodies belong to us. This is what is known as habeas corpus, the exact translation of the English expression, ‘our bodies our selves’. That is called habeas corpus. Therefore, if we look at matters from that viewpoint, we shall not fantasise about the subsidiarity reaffirmed in Article 1. We shall not fantasise about abortion, which would become the way to obtain contraception. No one wants an abortion. No one would wish an abortion on anyone. It has nothing to do with contraception. Therefore, if we look at things from that angle, we are looking at them from the angle of women’s rights, which are the equivalent of human rights, and I believe that with this in mind, unless we want to contradict ourselves, we must vote in favour of Mrs Van Lancker’s report. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Tunisia is a country in which there are major infringements of human rights. Sometimes the infringements appear to pass unnoticed. The opposition is persecuted, there are at least a thousand political prisoners in jail, freedom of expression is minimal and freedom of assembly is restricted. Journalists and workers for democracy are harassed, and lawyers are not permitted to work. A number of Tunisian human rights campaigners have been nominated for the Sacharov Prize, and we have criticised Tunisia on several occasions in this House. Now, there is cause to do so again. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is very concerned about the proceedings against Hamma Hammami and his colleagues in the banned Communist Party. Their trial is a farce, and the way it is being conducted completely unacceptable. There have been protests from all around the world. Even in my own country, where Tunisia is rarely mentioned, there have been a number of indignant press articles in the last few days about the way in which the members of the Tunisian Communist Party are being treated. Mr Hammami, Mr Madouri and Mr Taamallah decided of their own accord to come forward and stand trial. Subsequent developments have been alarming and very far from being in accordance with the principles of a constitutional state. The three have been maltreated, they are not allowed to see their lawyers, and the trial itself is one big legal farce. We are agreed that they are prisoners of conscience who must be treated decently and in a manner appropriate to a constitutional state. The trial is to begin again on 30 March and, until then, they should be set free. Because they themselves have given themselves up, that is only right. We must send a message to Tunisia to the effect that we are keeping an eye on the country and watching the trial, which we shall be following extremely closely. The EU must address the issues of Tunisia and of human rights in the Association Agreements and in the context of cooperation. We have been silent for too long about these issues. We make tough demands on ourselves and on the candidate countries, but almost no such demands upon Tunisia. That must not continue. Human rights issues must be highlighted in our continued contacts with Tunisia. We must stop grovelling to Ben Ali. Above all, attention must be given to this case.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would willingly have gone along with Mr Corbett’s suggestion but, since everybody else is doing it, my financial interests are obvious. I will be abstaining.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, whenever we debate the question of tobacco, I always wonder, even if we are all anti-smoking, why do we need to be anti-tobacco? These are two separate issues and I think that the Commission should realise that, as should many of the honourable Members. We are against smoking and we must do all we can to stop it from spreading and reduce it. I have no objection to that. But if we abolish tobacco growing, all we shall do is condemn a number of European citizens to financial ruin and give a fillip to tobacco farmers in third countries. All we shall do is reduce our exports and increase our imports. All we shall do is increase the dole queues in the European Union. Is that what we are trying to do? Is that our objective? In other words, do all those who maintain that, if we grub up tobacco farms in Europe, we shall help reduce smoking, mean to tell us that we need to grub up vineyards in order to fight alcoholism? Do they mean to tell us we should close our car factories in order to reduce the number of fatal road traffic accidents? It is time we stopped being two-faced, faced the facts and dealt with things in the proper manner. It is time we sat down together, with an open mind and our eyes wide open, called a spade a spade and worked out a strategy to drastically reduce smoking and its harmful effects and a strategy to develop the economy of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am delighted to have been able to work with Mrs Buitenweg. She has done an excellent and inclusive job producing a balanced text, which usefully strengthens the Commission’s hand. This proposed directive is a landmark for Europe. It is right that Europe should be legislating to guarantee the fundamental right to dignity, irrespective of ethnicity, and not to suffer discrimination. It is also timely for Europe to legislate now with the alarming rise in the Far Right and racist violence. I want to highlight a few aspects of the text. Firstly, the very significant inclusion of indirect and institutional racism, and amendments have strengthened that aspect. Secondly, the specific inclusion of housing, health and other public authority functions, including policing. This is not interference in national responsibilities, but an assertion that the non-discriminatory delivery of these services is a European concern. Thirdly, the inclusion via Amendments Nos 15 and 29 of disguised race discrimination. My Group is not favourable to the inclusion of religion or belief in the scope of this directive because that needs much more thought. However, we believe unequal treatment should be caught if it only pretends to be based on religion or nationality but is, in fact, race discrimination pure and simple. Fourthly, the inclusion, as has already been mentioned, of incitement or pressure to discriminate – that is very important. Fifthly, the role of the European Union Monitoring Centre in assisting the Commission in monitoring the implementation of this directive – and I hope the Commission will welcome that. Sixthly, although my Group understands the thinking behind Amendment No 38, the fact that it includes private clubs or associations is rather problematical. To give you an example: I represent London and it could mean a problem for Caribbean people getting together to reminisce about life in the Caribbean in the 1950s if some white people were excluded. I think that Amendment No 38 is not well drafted. Lastly, on the adjustment of the burden of proof, and I am borrowing Mr Oostlander’s phrase here, because he is quite correct to refer to it as ‘sharing’ or a ‘distribution’ of the burden of proof. I am rather sorry that the Socialist Group insist on calling it a reversal of the burden of proof because that is slightly misleading. It applies to the limited circumstances of equal opportunities law which is civil or administrative law. My Group agrees that since the employer authority has most of the information, it must prove there has been no breach of equal treatment once the complainant has demonstrated a prima facie case. Finally, there will be more heat than light from some speakers today and I am afraid I might include Mr Helmer of whose remarks I had a foretaste last night on the way back from the delightful asparagus dinner. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council and Commissioner, first of all I would like to say on behalf of my group that we are extremely pleased that during the year now ended negotiations have truly made rapid progress and it has been possible to close one chapter after another. My group truly regards 2004 as a target timetable by which it is possible – not certain, but possible – that as many as ten new countries may join the European Union. Simultaneous accession by such a large group would,, of course, bring the advantage that we would avoid new division lines between the applicant countries, and in my opinion this is something which we must earnestly strive towards. Mr Hänsch did a fine job of explaining how the enlargement process is one in which both the current and the future Member States of the European Union will benefit: everyone can benefit from this. I wish however to stress that this means that we must truly be able to create an economic and social dynamic so that these benefits will be realised even in the pre-accession period. Here I wish to stress the emphasis which my group places on this point: sustainable development must be sustainable not only economically, but also ecologically and socially. We need to emphasise that the applicant countries must take very seriously any Community legislation which aims to strengthen these sustainable characteristics. It goes without saying that children's rights and the principle of non-discrimination are the sort of principles to which we, as Europeans, must hold fast. Mr. President, our group hopes that it would be possible to deploy additional resources in order to expedite this dynamic. Here we refer to the fact that the Community's funding framework for the years 2000-2006 contains some resources which could possibly be freed, since quite obviously no new Member States will be joining in 2002. Those resources which are freed on account of this fact could be deployed, even in the pre-accession period, as tools of agricultural and structural policy in order to strengthen this positive dynamic. We would like to see the common agricultural policy strongly reformed in such a direction that, instead of making direct aid payments to large farmers in the European Union or in the applicant countries, these resources would be firmly shifted to rural development and quality-oriented food production. Finally, Mr President, one very important shortcoming in this process is that the involvement of citizens has, up to now, been particularly poor. We would like to take part in serious consideration of how we could increase the participation of ordinary citizens in the enlargement process also in the applicant countries, since at the moment what is happening is that it is only the narrow élites of society who find enlargement to their advantage, and it is these people who are pushing enlargement. A great many people, however, are perplexed, and fear that enlargement will be to their detriment. The position of women and the fight against poverty must be taken into account, and our group would like to emphasise these matters.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur and my colleagues on working together to achieve the compromise formula and definitions, which have covered a very complicated and technical set of issues. I particularly wish to support the importance of aiming at energy savings over efficiency: we want to use less fuel. I welcome the linkage of support with the environmental benefits that will flow from it. I would like to refer to some concerns expressed by a company in my former constituency and now the south-west region that I represent. They tell me they have supplied co-generation plant over the past 20 years, which has contributed to an estimated annual saving of 700 000 tonnes of carbon, which is a significant saving. They are concerned about this 50-megawatt threshold for eligibility. They want it to be removed as a distortion or potential distortion to investment decisions. They are very keen on the test of eligibility for support to be based on primary energy savings and – a point which has not yet been mentioned – they want the directive to recognise and reward the benefits of utilising waste heat and fuels. That can come from a variety of sources. I wish to raise two concerns of my own. Firstly, we must beware of losing sight of the objectives of this directive beneath this welter of technical detail. Colleagues have referred to the complexities that we have been addressing in committee and sometimes it has been a little obscure what the outcome would be. We must remember that we are looking for primary energy savings. I am concerned about the potential for over-elaborate administrative requirements: too many people being involved in the certification and eligibility procedures. There is always a risk that one can stifle an initiative by too much bureaucracy. However, I would like to broadly commend and support this proposal. We look forward to achieving a good result in the vote tomorrow with the cooperation that we have seen up to now.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wish to thank my friend, the Commissioner, whom I have always found very helpful. This was an extremely full and helpful reply. I am sure that Parliament is most appreciative. One matter surprised me a little, although I will read his reply in detail to study it, and this is the police unit set up within the Council. Am I right in assuming that command of a police force which is sent by us actually rests in the final analysis with the Council and not with the Commission, even though policing is demonstrably a peacekeeping and not a military operation?

Political group: ELDR
I do not think that there is a difference of opinion on the question whether we would like to see a chemical industry subsidised on the basis of the agricultural policy. What is important, however – as transpired last year – is that on the basis of the budget discipline considerations, and other considerations, this option was not available for a while. That is point one. Point two is that industry has been making distinct noises to the effect that the existing discrepancies are forming an obstacle, and so are costs incurred in processing. These aspects very much form part of the European agricultural policy. Alongside this, it cannot be denied that producers of vegetable products in the European Union are going through a rough time at the moment. In that sense, every kilogram of extra sale to the chemical industry is a welcome bonus, especially when producers can prove that they are having to produce against a higher cost price after all. I would still like to ask the Commissioner, based on a real cost-price analysis for companies in Europe and elsewhere, also taking into consideration the genetically modified aspect, to again cast a critical eye over whether these regulations outside the scope of active improvement could not, in fact, be applied more forcefully.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Pack, ladies and gentlemen, any opinion on Albania can only be mixed. Having weathered battles which did not exclude violence between parties, regions and clans, Albania now appears to be realising that it cannot continue to be separate from Europe and that, to enter Europe, it will have to observe its founding principles. The methods used to decide the elections held a year ago were still the inferior, traditional methods employed in the past by the Balkan States; in just a few weeks’ time, the next elections for the President of the Republic are due to take place and the impression generated by the discussions which have taken place in this very Chamber in the European Parliament is that the Albanians might now be realising that, if they are to make any progress towards normalisation, they will need a high-calibre candidate for the presidency who has the backing of a large popular consensus. It is no accident that, among the problems the successful candidate will have to resolve will be widespread corruption, a highly inadequate State administration and organised crime. The judiciary needs to be re-established and frameworks created for the new administration, all without the necessary financial resources. Europe can help Albania by launching negotiations leading to the signing of an association and stabilisation agreement even before the year is out, if possible. We must not, however, conceal that fact that, essentially, it will be up to the Albanians to help themselves and that no negotiations will last long if respect for the Rule of Law is lacking. Their first test will therefore be these presidential elections. The newly formed two-party committee will have to start work the minute the elections are over and will be called upon to investigate precisely the irregularities of the summer 2001 legislative elections. Clearly, the committee will have to ensure that the abuses of power which have given both Albania’s citizens and external observers cause for concern are not repeated.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I fully support the rapporteur’s view that we must take a tough line against piracy and base our approach to it on a global strategy. In other words, we must take preventive as well as repressive measures. The consequences in economic terms are certainly not to be underestimated. According to estimates, the damage done accounts for between 5 and 7% of world trade. I would therefore ask the Commission if this problem should not be accorded more attention during the on-going negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. After all, most pirated products come from countries outside the European Union, with the damaging effects being felt here. I will give you an example: according to recent investigations, if we were to reduce piracy by 10% in the information technology sector alone, this would immediately create 250 000 jobs within the European Union. We do well to put the emphasis on prevention. The European consumer must be made to realise that purchasing counterfeit products has a damaging effect at various levels, himself included. It hampers economic growth and endangers public health and safety. Worse still, there is a growing conviction that piracy is in the hands of organised criminals, who make a living out of it and engage in money laundering. The action plan for combating organised crime made reference to this as far back as June 1997, as well as calling upon both the Council and Commission to put common provisions in place in the fight against organised crime pertaining to counterfeiting. This report has come not a moment too soon. It is a sound report. If the single market and free trade are to function effectively, then creativity and innovation must be stimulated and not crippled by nefarious practices.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the multilateral spirit of world solidarity and the global coalition against international terrorism immediately post 11 September, we in Europe, under the inspiring leadership of Commissioner Pascal Lamy, have gone all out to build bridges, to win the USA over and to make Doha a successful development round. Ultimately the deciding factor turned out to be developing countries’ access to cheap medicines without paying for patents, either by their own production or by importing them. Ultimately the political breakthrough came. All developing countries can now establish when they are having a serious health crisis or problem and nothing is preventing them, not even the TRIPs agreement, from buying or producing cheap medicines. That applies to all developing countries and all medicines. There are no restrictions, and no external prior approval is needed. The assignment was to round this off in a legally conclusive text. This should have been done in December 2002, but it failed because the USA, in my opinion, was no longer adopting a multilateral position. I believe President Bush trampled all over the Doha agreement in favour of his own pharmaceutical industry. Commissioner Lamy, you have always told us that you are negotiating on behalf of the whole of Europe and that you accept the European Parliament as possessing powers of democratic control and codecision. Well, this is an important point for the Group of the – and, when I listen to my fellow-Members, for many other groups too. We should like to say that you enjoy our full support, but we do not wish to bow under pressure from the USA any further. So: this far and no further. We want no restrictions on countries, no restrictions on the types of medicines, nor any prior approval by an external authority. That is naturally a little different from the advice from the WHO. We do support stringent measures to protect our own European market against dumping, however. With more than 90% of AIDS patients in developing countries, we want Europe to unambiguously decide which side it is on and to strictly limit itself to a solution in line with the political Doha agreement. We urge other groups in this Parliament to vote accordingly. The interests of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria patients worldwide must be at centre stage. Not commerce. Necessity knows no law. The TRIPS agreements must not be a limiting factor. As the Group we are convinced that if this point fails, Doha will be keelhauled and Cancun will have failed before it even starts. Then there will be no development round! And that is the last thing that the world will permit in the current, very serious crisis. That is why we are taking this clear stance. Having heard my fellow-Members Mr Wijkman, Mr Clegg and Mrs McNally and many others, I think that Parliament is on the point of making a clear judgment and giving Commissioner Lamy, who, as he has understood, enjoys our full support, a powerful mandate.

Political group: PSE