GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Along with my British Conservative colleagues I have actively engaged in raising concerns relating to fraud, waste and mismanagement in the European Union institutions and we have played a major role in highlighting the issues to the wider public. Since the motion of censure was originally devised, Commissioner Solbes has resigned and returned to Spanish politics. In these circumstances it was no longer credible to support a motion against the whole Commission and our delegation policy was therefore to abstain. Nevertheless, it is essential that the Commission take serious note of the concerns expressed in the resolution on Eurostat adopted by the European Parliament on 22 April 2004; -

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Parliament will vote on 12 April, to adopt a new directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are major issues at stake. The time has come to make those who engage in the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms legally responsible for damage to human health and the environment. They should be liable for any damage caused by such releases and they should be required to take out liability insurance just as every driver has to take out liability insurance in case he kills or injures another human being. The argument has been made that this issue should instead be covered by horizontal legislation. It is worth noting, however, that we have heard this argument since discussions about Directive 90/220/EEC first started in 1989. At that time, the Commission promised that liability for environmental damage caused by GMOs would be covered by horizontal legislation, but we have been waiting for more than 10 years for that promise to be fulfilled. We must adopt an immediate and categorical ban on the use of antibiotic resistant genes. Many scientists and organisations, such as the Pasteur Institute and the British Medical Association, have called for a ban on the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes, which do not perform any relevant function on the plants and are therefore completely superfluous. In the common position antibiotic-resistant genes would just “be phased out” in the future, and only if “they may have any adverse effects on human health and the environment”. This would mean that antibiotic-resistant products that have already been authorised would remain. There are many less damaging forms of marker genes available and it is EU policy to prohibit all unnecessary use of antibiotics if there is a risk for human or animal health. The directive should take a clear stand and insist that the use of these marker genes is stopped now. The pharmaceutical industry wants a total exemption from the directive. The Environment Committee adopted two contradictory amendments, one for a total exemption and one tightening up the common position line of a conditional exemption with all the normal environmental risk provisions. It is unacceptable that the industry could be allowed on exemption unless the environmental risk provisions apply.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the Kauppi report, which recalls what 2001 meant for the euro, the European single currency and in particular the role of the European Central Bank. I emphasise that part – a little lacking, I must say – of this report that deals with the macroeconomy, that is, the Member States’ budgets and their influence on the European Central Bank’s initiatives. I do so in the hope that, in their budgets, the Member States will take care that national pension institute spending in the area of social security is done prudently, in the citizens’ interests, and done fairly for all the citizens and not unfairly, as unfortunately happens all too often.

Political group: PPE-DE
The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector has led to the most serious crisis in its history. The policy of widespread privatisation, which is a direct consequence of opting for deregulation and enforced competition, has led to appalling debts on the part of the operators which seek new market shares at any cost whatsoever and construct parallel and competing networks, such as mobile networks, in a questionable waste of resources. This situation is accompanied, let it be remembered, by huge job losses and the jeopardising of any notion of public service. The report presented to the House by Mr Clegg comes out in favour of taking an additional step in this same direction. I cannot but vote against it. Another policy is needed, based on the satisfaction of social needs. Telecommunications must be defended as a public service, necessitating state supervision of the policy applied and of the choice of operators. We defend the following principles: low rates for the services most used by the majority of the population; free services for the poorest people; blanket geographical cover by high-turnover mobile and Internet networks in a public service framework; and, finally, equipping developing countries on the basis of fair and equal relations between nations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I support the cautious approach which the Commissioner has taken and is taking in this matter, firstly because this is not a simple issue. It is complicated; it is always difficult to determine the origin of any goods and where they come from. No less so in the Middle East because there you have a situation where there are many joint ventures between Israel and Palestinians, where produce in some cases is partly manufactured in the Palestinian area and in the State of Israel and these developments are good things, they augur well for the future because if trade is being done in this way in the Middle East, then that will be the bedrock of any peace agreement. Therefore, because it is not an easy and simple issue, we have to be cautious and we have to be careful. The second reason why the Commission is right to proceed in this way is that if the European Union wishes to play a part in the area in securing peace then it must be seen to be fair and evenhanded. It would not be fair and evenhanded to rush into a decision without letting the talks and the groups that it is meeting determine what the situation is, both in terms of the area of the State of Israel relating to the trade agreement and, as I say, in relation to the goods and where they come from at the same time. There is I think one final reason why the Commission should be supported. We are at a delicate stage in relation to the peace agreement. You have a government in Israel which wants peace and wants to secure peace and if you proceed in a rash and rapid way then you could jeopardise the success of that peace agreement. You cannot cherrypick in negotiations, this is part of an overall settlement of some extremely complicated issues and I think the Commission is absolutely right to let these things flow through carefully in the hope that by doing so we can secure what all of us want and that is a secure and just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Political group: PPE-DE
In 1992, when our Community declared it was moving beyond the economic dimension to become a Union, its treaty stated that ‘the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States’. Article 7 provides safeguard mechanisms. The sad Austrian episode in 1999 caused us to think again about the effectiveness of those instruments. Amendments were subsequently adopted, but they did not go far enough. We can therefore be pleased at the Commission’s initiative. Like the rapporteur, however, I think the Commission is on the wrong track in basing its strategy only on prevention. Prevention must be combined with penalties. A risk of breach of fundamental rights is very difficult to define. I advocate a broad definition, to include, for example, a Member State’s failure to deal with human rights violations (racism, anti-Semitism), the discriminatory impoverishment of population groups, serious restrictions on the freedom of the press.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, can I make clear that the Socialist Group wants the words 'free, fair and socially-balanced' included. We are now voting on Amendment No 11 which deletes them. Have I understood correctly? So we will vote against this amendment and in favour of the original recital.

Political group: PSE
We need to look at the ‘tobacco’ sector as a whole and take a balanced approach to the various areas (CAP and the environment, economic and social cohesion, public health). Studies by the Commission into this are under way and their results and findings will need to be incorporated in specific proposals. We should not delude ourselves that, if we reduce tobacco growing, everyone will stop smoking in the EU. We must accept that tobacco will then be imported from third countries, where we cannot do anything about tobacco growing, while jobs are being lost in the EU. We have a duty towards the people who earn a living from growing tobacco and we must offer them reasonable alternatives. Restructuring measures could be funded from the new area within the Community Tobacco Fund, the budget for which needs to be increased by 3%. I also call for information and awareness campaigns to be stepped up on the damage which tobacco consumption causes to health.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the likely reason for the Commission's proposal being such a centre of attention is that we are dealing here with employment, especially with mobility, and with issues of safety, environmental protection and economic development as well, and the opinions which are still being vigorously discussed today were also the basis for almost 500 proposed amendments. I would like at this point to again make clear that, for us, it really is not about opening up local transport in such a way that it inevitably ends up in private hands. Nor is it about local transport remaining in public hands unconditionally, and that is the subtle distinction that we want to make clear now. National, regional and also local government are to be obliged to put local transport out to tender, a process to which conditions must be attached, conditions which we have clearly described in numerous proposed amendments. For us, it is about safety. It is also about certain exceptions, small markets in rural areas, for example. We, of course, view these exceptions with sympathy, as we do the special aspects associated with rail transport. As has just been said, though, our misgiving cannot be dispelled that many are more interested in the service provider than in the service itself, for the word 'voter' was just used rather than 'citizen', something that we find symptomatic of the whole discussion we have been having. We have brought in numerous amendments and can, I believe, say quite unambiguously that these amendments prevent social dumping and also guarantee social security, safety in general, and, I believe, can give local transport a better future. One final observation, with which I know the Commission has difficulty. Protected markets make it impossible, in our view, for businesses profiting from them to take part in tendering processes in other markets without, at least, some problematic aspects being created. As we see it, that is, and cannot be other than, unfair competition, which must be combated by all means available.

Political group: PPE-DE
I was in Paris Mr President. A night at the Moulin Rouge: a cabaret, dance, topless dancers, with feathers as appropriate. Fantastic! There, in the middle of these hundred dancers, the only male dancer appeared. I looked at him: it was Mr Mauro, who was dancing with the gracefulness of Fred Astaire and was singing with the voice of Frank Sinatra. Then, at one point, the music stopped and Mr Mauro, dancer at the Moulin Rouge, turned to me and said: ‘e-twinning of universities: that is what my document will achieve.’ Could I vote against this report, Mr President, after Mr Mauro’s exploit?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the subject which we are examining appears at first sight to be technical, yet it conceals behind it a very serious political dimension, in that it concerns the funding of organisations which, according to the wording repeated in the explanatory statements of all three reports, 'reinforce the European message' and operate in three crucial areas: youth, education and culture. But why spend around EUR 40 million a year over five years in order to reinforce the so-called European message? Because it would appear that the advertising and promotions carried out both by the services of the European Union and by the Member States in order to convince the peoples of the benefits of Europe are not enough. Nor are the funds in these three sectors of educational exchanges and special programmes for youth and culture enough. The daily experiences of the workers, unemployment, hardship, the attack on their rights and the commercialisation of everything prove exactly the opposite. A multisided mechanism is therefore being constructed which even wants to involve and buy off independent organisations and foundations. Without wanting to belittle the work of some of these organisations, we cannot but identify certain typical cases of funding, such as that of the European Youth Forum, which are an attempt at direct intervention in the youth movement in a bid to prevent the radicalisation of young people. Of the action in the field of education, we single out funding for teaching about European integration in universities, the funding of foundations which promote the policy of the European Union, even training of national judges in Community law. The Communist Party of Greece is categorically opposed to the erection of propaganda mechanisms which aim to conceal the anti-grass roots character of the European Union. That is why we shall vote against all three proposals, without entering into the debate on the details.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Item E of the Council Conclusions states that the European Union is committed to keeping its leading role in sustainable development, both at home and abroad. It is therefore perfectly clear to me that what is currently going on in Iraq is in contravention of Item E of the Council Conclusions. For the war in Iraq is not sustainable; it is bringing suffering and devastation upon the people and is weakening across the board the industrialised countries' position in the global context of sustainable development. Money is being wasted on it rather than being put into sustainable investment. In the United States, it has been estimated that the war will cost USD 90 billion in the best-case scenario, and USD 1 000 billion at worst. We have already gone beyond the best-case scenario, as the war has already gone on longer than the USD 90 billion estimate assumed. That far exceeds the mere USD 50 billion that all the industrial nations together spend in a year on development cooperation. In view of this, we can indeed say that money is being wasted rather than being spent in a sustainable way. Secondly, I get the feeling that sustainable development is being relegated to the bottom of the list even within the European Union. On the credit side, I acknowledge that reference is made to the promotion of environmental technology and of clean transport, but I do believe that we have to generally press forward with more vigorous ecological renewal of our industrialised society if employment is to be generated and sustainable development advanced, as, without it, both these objectives will remain beyond our reach. So clear benchmarks are needed for what we want and for the methods that will enable us to monitor it; sustainable development needs clear goals and clear indicators in the same way as employment policy does, for sustainability is not a fig leaf, but a modern garment that would suit the EU well.

Political group: PSE
Is the Council aware of the social problems caused by the export of food by the EU to developing countries at prices below the cost of production? Does the presidency intend to do anything about this?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his reply and I take note of the fact that, from a legislative point of view, the Commission has made considerable progress since 1997. I would like to ask a supplementary question, as a result of the perplexity expressed by my constituents at the horrendous errors and contradictions of the Spanish authorities. Specifically, a regional Agricultural Minister has ordered that dead cows be deposited in an open mine. There have been statements from one minister saying one thing while another minister says the opposite. At least in Germany ministers have resigned. My question is: apart from legislative measures, does the Commission intend to take executive measures in relation to the Member States? Will the Commission exercise a greater presence in our States in order to offer the citizens guarantees? Has the Commission at any point considered employing infringement proceedings, by means of a letter of infringement, so that the Community citizens may realise that the Commission it truly fighting for their safety and health?

Political group: PSE
If you are going to be fair Mr President, let me say I express total satisfaction with the reply of the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, war has begun and we have had the first ten Iraqi deaths in Baghdad. These are facts. From now on weapons will be doing the talking and words will become weapons; they are no longer reliable. Let us look at the facts and the real agenda that is being employed will become clear. What must our agenda be? Our peoples are deeply disillusioned, Mr President-in-Office, because Europe with its powerful institutions has been unable to avoid this war. Our European politicians will have to answer to their people for their impotence. Our European politicians will have to find solutions if they are to provide a real answer for this in the future. Secondly: war kills, and in particular innocent citizens, women and children. We in the European Union must try to relieve the misery and ease the suffering. War destroys and, as Mr van den Berg has said, we shall therefore have to build an international framework for reconstruction. Thirdly: people know where the war begins, but no one knows where it may end. The Kurds in Northern Iraq fear the loss of what little freedom and autonomy they have built up so painstakingly and at the cost of so many lives. They again fear finding themselves between the hammer and the anvil. Will the Kurds be sacrificed to do Ankara a favour? The Turkish Kurds are fearful of being militarily overwhelmed. The Kurds in Northern Iraq fear permanent occupation. The Iranian opposition fears that the mullahs will take the opportunity to destroy them. Will the European Union see the opposition in Iraq being completely sidelined? In the Middle East the frustrations will flare up higher than ever. Only a solution with a Palestinian state, which is clearly coming, can bring these frustrations to an end.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there are some agreements that are stupid because they are inflexible. That is the reason why someone in a very authoritative position said the Stability and Growth Pact was stupid. Some of the representatives from France, Germany and Portugal in our group might agree, as might some Italians also. Stupid too is the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline, which was concluded in May 1999. That was the last job of the previous Parliament carried out for the present one. It is on account of this stupid agreement that the European Parliament is virtually powerless when it comes to budgetary policy. All we can do is sit around counting paper clips and spend our time in petty administrative tasks. Mr Prodi said of the Growth and Stability Pact that the reality that lies behind it is multi-layered and that the institutions should take this into consideration and act flexibly. The same has to be said about the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. Heading 4, the section that deals with external actions, is especially stupid in terms of its inflexibility. We all know, everyone in this House knows, that the budget is in that respect ‘quasi-rigid’. A ceiling was fixed in the Interinstitutional Agreement, regarding which the Council is unwilling to be flexible. Parliament has had the onerous task of trying to fit new priorities that both Parliament and the Council think important under the 1999 ceiling. A few million has been discussed, and at the same time there might possibly be a billion in appropriations in heading 4 still not forwarded for payment. Thus, there is money in this heading which everybody knows is not being spent. One of the biggest problems with the budgetary procedure is how to include as an extension to the unpaid appropriations in this heading the new appropriations we want to pay, and which we need to pay, in order to fulfil the wishes of the budgetary authorities. As the Interinstitutional Agreement is terrorising the drafting of the budget, it must come as no surprise to anyone that if EUR 10 billion remains unused from this budget it will go back to the Member States. I call the Interinstitutional Agreement stupid because of its inflexibility, and the same goes for the Council that is perpetuating this inflexibility. I cannot, however, agree with the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, regarding the stupidity of the Stability and Growth Pact. Well done, Sweden! The Swedish rapporteurs have done an excellent job.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s decision against the joint text for an EU directive on company law concerning takeover bids is regrettable. As a result of this House’s decision to reject the directive, the European capital markets will continue to be fragmented in a key area, namely the trading of companies. Future-oriented opportunities to increase prosperity can only be achieved through open markets and free trade. Sadly, Parliament has deviated from this position. It would have been infinitely preferable, in my view, if we had called for management boards to be required to remain neutral, as the interests of owners do not always coincide with those of senior executives. The implication that Germany, for example, requires greater protection from hostile takeovers because golden shares and majority voting shares exist in other countries reflects protectionist attitudes. One cannot pursue a protectionist course simply because other countries are doing so. In the wake of this vote, the European national states will now protect their slices of industry and financial trade; in sum, this is a bad day for the internal market, and a bad day for Europe as a location for industry.

Political group: PPE-DE