GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all I should like to say to the two Commissioners here – one of whom was in Cancún – how well and hard they worked to get a solution to the WTO negotiations. Where do we go from our new position? Mrs Mann said, quite rightly, that we will have new people, both from America and from the European Union. We must make sure that people understand the position in which the European Union has put itself. Commissioner Lamy said in his speech that we have correctly reformed to move forward. How right he is. One of the reasons for the failure of the Cancún debate was its use and misuse, for example by NGOs. I have two press releases, one from Oxfam and the other from Friends of the Earth, one of which states that the G21 today refused to accept European plans to expand the WTO and bring in new negotiations to liberalise investment. Mr Rübig talked about small and medium-sized enterprises, the very things that are needed within the European Union and within the developing countries to help them. They are the backbone of their future. The other press release mentions bullying. Could I ask this august House whether our two Commissioners look like bullies? Have they been throwing their weight around the WTO trying to bully the emerging democracies into submission? Not at all. We reformed. Commissioner Fischler worked hard on the reformation of the common agricultural policy. That is the way forward. We must get the message across: the European Union is there to negotiate. Commissioner Lamy has put forward 'everything but arms' in the new proposals that are helping these underdeveloped countries. We must get these points across and make sure that we have multilateral discussions with EU involvement. At this point, I must say how well the European Parliament meetings in Cancún were received, and how well we were supported by some of the developing countries. It is important that we play a strong and future-oriented role in the next negotiations. I rely on the new negotiators, whoever they may be, to make sure we get that point across.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall not go over the health aspects of the directive again, for indeed I support the rapporteur wholeheartedly as well as the amendments tabled by my fellow Member, Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I should like briefly to mention the matter of the potential unemployment created by this directive. The tobacco industry presents itself as the harbinger of employment in Europe and claims to defend jobs, but what has the management in the tobacco industry actually achieved between the late 1980s and the present? Jobs in the industry have been “rationalised” by 50%. Employment levels in tobacco production, which formerly stood at 120 000 people, now involves no more than 60 000 people. A World Bank study shows that a reduction in tobacco consumption worldwide will lead to an increase in job creation: for if the money spent today on tobacco is spent in future on some other luxury product, for example, this will create more jobs because the tobacco industry is one that has been rationalised to the bone. It is therefore not true that the directive will cause job losses. To return to the question of exports to third world countries, is the health of an African worth less than the health of a European? The speeches made by some Members of this House, who I sincerely believe to be inspired by the arguments of the tobacco industry, are reminiscent of the debate on chocolate. As soon as certain industries and certain employers in Europe stand to gain something, the solidarity advocated in our speeches no longer seems to apply. This is one more reason to support Mr Maaten’s report, and also the European Commission’s efforts to extend the directive to exports too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, the question regarding the safety of Europe’s skies is being considered in terms of immediate and urgent measures. It is also being considered in terms of longer-term measures regarding security standards in aircraft and at boarding. We have duly noted the Commission statements, particularly on the various measures taken regarding checks on passengers, on hand luggage, as well as on flights from third countries. In my view, these are wise comments. We must also accelerate the completion of security programmes relating to checks on hold luggage and ensure that our decisions have been implemented. I shall not go back over what was said earlier regarding the scandalous situation involving the AZF factory, only a few weeks after we held debates in this Chamber. As far as safety on aircraft and at boarding are concerned, the events of 11 September show that two measures must be taken in aircraft design: cockpits must be sealed off and video monitors must be installed to enable the pilot to see anyone nearing the cockpit. Secondly, there is the issue of transponders. Transponders transmit the aircraft’s code and position to the air traffic control tower. Transponders must be secure and it must no longer be possible to disconnect them during flights, as was the case during the attacks on the United States. I would also like to draw Parliament’s attention to the issue of aid to the European airline industry. To be honest, I think that it is extremely tactless, even provocative, for the Commission to open the debate on concentration within the airline industry at this point in time. In addition to the economic battering that companies are taking, to confirm that Europe only has enough room for four or five airlines amounts to inviting mergers, restructuring and therefore redundancy plans. On the other hand, several sources are predicting a 15 to 30% decrease in air traffic and the European Association of Air Carriers states that overall traffic levels will have decreased by more than 7% by 2002, incurring losses estimated to be over three billion euro. In my view, the regulations on state aid to airlines must be extended in order to take into full consideration all the consequences of 11 September. Lastly, I would like to say one final word to point out that these public funds are intended to help companies to continue to be viable. I believe, therefore, that it is our duty to ensure that they are used and to avoid any redundancies in the sector. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking both rapporteurs for the work they have done, but I have to say that I am very uneasy about the decision we have to take. The fact is, I feel as if I am in a kind of hostage situation. On the one hand, I want to reject GMO technology, which is far from being problem-free. It is no panacea. On the contrary, it exposes us to risks because it is impossible to predict the characteristics to which a modified gene may give rise in its new environment. Co-existence sounds good, but we also know that GMOs are infectious. We do not therefore know what situation we are facing. There is also a concentration of power, and the big multinational companies exercise incredible pressure, especially upon the African countries. On the other hand, if we cannot put a stop to GMOs, strict rules are naturally needed. We must minimise the risk. I am therefore going to vote tomorrow in favour of the amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I want, however, to say once and for all that there are so many issues left to solve, for example in connection with environmental liability, that there can be no question of lifting the moratorium.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I really must thank Mr Moscovici for the quality and content of his reply and for the fact that the European Union feels that the international conventions of the United Nations Organisation, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, should be ratified. I should just like to observe, by way of a supplementary question, that ratification is extremely important, but often it is not enough. Because, if I am not mistaken, the United States have ratified the new International Labour Organisation Convention on Child Labour but the convention is not being applied. And where I think the minister needs to add to what he has told us is on whether the European Union, whether the Council will also demand at a practical level during the two days of contacts that the United States apply the provisions of the International Labour Organisation Convention and the United States convention on the Rights of the Child.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in the eyes of the surrounding world, the EU’s work on human rights is of very great significance. Rogue states, which we condemn in our reports, despatch their ambassadors with a view to having references to their countries removed at any price. Conversely, a resolution by Parliament sometimes gives hope and renewed courage to those throughout the world who are imprisoned, tortured and oppressed or who are engaged in struggle. Committed people look to the EU to play an active role in working for a better world. They are sometimes disappointed when we choose to close our eyes to serious crimes because trade policy or strategic interests come before such gross violations. We must therefore never flinch from emphasising human rights in contacts with countries such as China, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc. Almost five years ago, I myself wrote a report on the annual report on human rights in which I drew attention to the subject of violence against women. I think it logical that we continue down this road in the last report of this term of office. The fact that, in 2004, we are having a debate about sexual violence, genital mutilation, the sex trade, the rape of young girls and the lack of AIDS medication not belonging in a report on human rights shows that we have quite a long way to go in this House too. I do not agree with Mrs De Keyser regarding all the details of her report, but it is important and only right to highlight these issues. It is very odd that there should be protests from the right wing about these issues not belonging in a report on human rights.

Political group: ELDR
I abstained in the vote on the proposal for a regulation on the protection of animals during transport because of the lack of integrity in the overall report. On the one hand, I feel it was politically motivated rather than scientifically based. It is unacceptable to legislate on the basis of making science fit regulation. The welfare of our animals deserves regulation that is based on best scientific practice. On the other hand, it has to be questionable whether a nine-hour cap on the transport of animals is legally possible in the single market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank the High Representative for his statement. It is with much regret that we have to observe that the large amount of sympathy always enjoyed by Israel in Europe has sustained significant damage over the last year. That is something that can be inferred from today’s debate in this House, and it can be observed by keeping an eye on the European media and by listening to the announcements by the European governments, parliaments and political parties, including too the very clear European rejection of the decision by Israel’s Security Cabinet to remove Yasser Arafat from the Palestinian territories. In the same way, we must condemn the Israeli attack on Syria, an action that contravenes international law. Nor does the fact that the United States is now considering sanctions against Syria contribute to a solution to the Middle East conflict. The latest trend is, naturally enough, reflected here in the European Parliament and thus in the report that we have just heard discussed and that has been adopted by a large majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. This contains probably the toughest criticism of Israel we have seen here in Parliament. The Israeli Government must withdraw its military forces from the occupied territories and bring them home. It must put a stop to the executions, and it must suspend all activities surrounding the settlements and the construction of the shameful so-called Security Wall. I should like to thank Mr Poettering for his very clear remarks about that wall. The Palestinian authorities must secure clear and firm support for the new government’s efforts to reorganise the security forces. They must restore public order. They must clearly demonstrate that they are taking practical and visible steps to combat the terrorist movements, they must implement the reforms already proposed and they must organise, where possible, free, fair and open elections. We no doubt all share the High Representative’s frustrations, but we must keep to the Quartet’s road map for peace in the Middle East. We must reach a definitive peace agreement between two equal, democratic and sovereign states that live peacefully together behind secure and recognised borders on the basis of UN Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967. Israel and Palestine cannot resolve the conflict without help from outside, and the international community must continue to put pressure on both parties. It may also be necessary to send an international intervention and observation force to the region, a force that the Quartet must assemble, that, under the auspices of the UN, would monitor developments and that, subsequently, could guarantee that the final peace agreement was being observed by the parties.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, it was a very turbulent night sitting in which Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed upon a common water policy for all Member States. Parliament’s really quite significant victory consists in the fact that this directive is to be binding. Let us remember, however, that until the very end a number of Member States vehemently resisted any requirement that they should manage their own water resources more carefully and in an environmentally more conscious way in future. However, it was splendid to see the way in which the Members of the European Parliament transcended all party differences and quite clearly agreed that there should be no common position without a legal requirement. A further important victory for MEPs involved the protection of groundwater. Dangerous substances must completely have disappeared from groundwater within 20 years of the Directive’s publication. Will we achieve this objective? It now remains for whatever dangerous substances are meant here to be listed in an annex to the Directive, and it is already clear to me that there will certainly be further heated discussions on this matter. I believe, however, that the great objective of protecting Europe’s groundwater for future generations is not in dispute. The process of re-thinking has taken place: a considerable victory for the political process and a considerable victory on behalf of our children.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, legal doctrine and politics talk a lot of the European social model and it should be pointed out that, at least in terms of the collective rights which regulate industrial and labour relations, European company law, as we are seeing this afternoon, is experiencing the trauma of a very difficult birth, after a pregnancy which has lasted thirty years. I would also like to point out that, in light of the Treaty of Maastricht and the Social Protocol, since 1974 there has only been one legislative instrument adopted at European Union level. Therefore, those of us who are tuned in to the thoughts of millions and millions of workers can today be satisfied because this second approximation is taking place, and then we will also see the reform of the Statute. However, Mr President, the least we can say is that we are going too slowly and with so many preventions and precautions (with regard to certain countries represented in the Council, including my own) that, in the end we have frankly witnessed an anticlimax. Very little has been produced. However, I am going to support it, of course. After so much drought we have this little drop of fresh water which, although it is still insufficient, is beginning to eradicate this terrible anguish which our citizens are also suffering. I would like to remind the members of the Council, as Mrs Weiler has said, that what is happening in Europe and in the rest of the world is that the people are extremely concerned, given the social advances they had achieved in each individual country, that the process of globalisation, the process of European Union construction – and next the enlargement of that Union – should not under any circumstances lead to a reversal of those social advances. Nevertheless, we are seeing that many governments, and some sections of political opinion, as well as sections of business, now intend to remove many of the achievements which had been made at national level. I would like to congratulate Mr Menrad because he has defended, from the point of view of the best Christian Democrat tradition, as well as our Social Democratic tradition, the social achievements made in his country of origin and intended for the whole of Europe. That must be our perspective: to move forward and to take the direction of the most advanced countries, and not of the least advanced; to take up the arguments of those who are thinking of the citizens, of the workers, and not of those who are considering how to remove the historic achievements of those citizens and workers. Therefore, Mr President, despite many doubts, doubts about the legal basis – I believe we will have to make an effort to defend the rights of Parliament – we must not delay this company legislation for one more second since, together with the directive on information and consultation, it must make rapid progress. And there will still be time, with experience, to improve on the current deficiencies.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to point out that in my intervention concerning the incident with the groups who presented a resolution on the fisheries agreement with Morocco, it appears from the Minutes that I was speaking on behalf of the Group and this is not correct. At that moment I was only representing the ten MEPs who make up the and I therefore ask for the Minutes to be corrected.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I come from a country where the boss of a multinational company, Michelin, decided to inform his shareholders first of his decision to make 10% of his employees in various countries redundant over the next three years. In the course of last month’s part-session, Commissioner, you stated, in a warm and convincing way, the Commission’s determination to protect employees’ rights in terms of information and consultation about their future. We are delighted that you are determined to see this into the Portuguese Presidency. However, and contrary to what the previous speaker has just said, the think that these rights should be extended to all companies that are not part of the small-business sector and we propose a minimum of twenty employees. If we adopted, as the Commission seems to want to do, a minimum of fifty employees, this would cause serious distortions of competition, affecting only 3% of European companies. One day we will have to go further. In several European countries, the participation of workers is something which society sets great store by. Participation in decision making and also participation in the results. The European Council did not want to follow Parliament’s advice on this matter. Today however, by means of pension funds, pensioners are participating more and more in companies’ capital, in their management and in their profits. It would be paradoxical and would even threaten a war between the generations if current employees were to be excluded from this kind of participation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to bring to your attention a written statement by Mr Glyn Ford, a Member of this House, in which he urges the boycotting of the products of a company in the European Union. I would also like this statement to be forwarded to the Council, the Commission and the Member States. I would ask you to call upon the Legal Service to make a statement as to whether this is in any way permissible. In Germany, my own country, it would be prohibited by law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the thick of euphoria, people who vote against the Regulation are immediately accused of adopting a clean-hands policy or eloping into fantasy, but my group has fundamental objections to a number of aspects in this proposal, and I refuse to sweep them under the carpet. My group, the Group of the , accepts that there are exceptions to disclosure. For example, a European defence policy could yield certain operational information which does not belong on the streets. But all documents must be recorded in the register, and it must be possible to test exceptions against strict criteria, in the last instance by the Court of Justice. That may be the procedure for normal documents, but unfortunately, special treatment has been agreed upon for potentially too large a group of special, sensitive documents, and I hear very little about this. The documents which are rubberstamped as “sensitive” are identified by a select group of officials within the institutions themselves. It is not necessary to include sensitive documents in the register, and the Court of Justice cannot verify whether this decision is justified. Should a clever citizen find out that the document exists after all, the same officials will decide on the application. And to cap it all, with regard to documents which do contribute to the decision-making process of European policy but which originate from outside, the author has a veto regarding both the inclusion in the register and the disclosure of the document. The Court too has to accept this veto. Sensitive documents constitute a black hole in this agreement on disclosure of information, and the right to information simply becomes an act of goodwill.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a very important project for the future of European integration and it has my support. Why? First, because it secures the rights of our citizens vis-à-vis the institutions and bodies of the European Union. Secondly, because it plugs a gap in the protection of fundamental rights for people living in the Union. Thirdly, because the Charter also ensures that the current level of protection in the European Human Rights Convention also applies in the Union; in fact, at some points, it goes even further than the European Human Rights Convention. Fourthly, because the Charter – and this is particularly important for me – is based on indivisible civil and political human rights and fundamental social rights. As a member of the convention, I argued for even further-reaching social rights, especially for the right to work and to a minimum, subsistence-level income to be enshrined in the Charter which, given the current social charter, it should have been. Nonetheless, I share the overall appraisal of the European Trade Union Confederation that, despite the narrow interpretation of social rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is an important step on the road towards a social Europe and a citizens' Europe and is a decided improvement over the present situation. Madam President, I think that what we need now, especially in the run up to Nice, is a comprehensive public debate with our citizens on the text of the Charter; we must also consider how to give them the opportunity to agree to this Charter. I personally am in favour of a European referendum on the Charter, as this would enable the very citizens of Europe to give us democratic authorisation to press ahead and build up Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL