GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, yes! Yes to research. I remember the temporary committee on human genetics; yes to research and yes to the compromises reached in the sixth framework programme. And then we perhaps need to talk about something that no one has yet mentioned, even though I have been listening to the debate from the outset. There are those who are here to criticise this research and reject it because of something that has remained unsaid and that I am going to say out loud now. It is almost a vulgarity; it is the word ‘abortion’. There are some here who are refusing to support this research in a bid to fight against abortion. It is all very well to talk about suffering, Parkinson’s disease and so on, but I would also like to talk about this issue, because it concerns women’s rights. There are two aspects to this. Firstly, research on stem cells is not an ethical battle over whether or not there is a right to abortion in European countries. Secondly, however, men and women are not on an equal footing where embryonic stem cells are concerned. I would be glad if someone other than myself were to say this in this House. There are a whole series of amendments, Commissioner, that seek to ensure that this is not a source of financial gain, and that you reject it on the basis of Article 152 on the grounds that this is not within the competence of the European Union and our institutions. In fact, I might remind you that Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that the human body cannot be a source of financial gain, and I would also remind you that this charter will – as, I hope, all of us here wish – be incorporated in the constitution very soon. Moreover, I would draw your attention to the fact that, even though embryonic stem cells do after all affect first and foremost women, and what women carry within them, there is no question of their becoming research instruments, economically speaking. This is not to be a source of financial gain. Even though we might think that it is not up to us to say it, I nevertheless believe that we should confront this fundamental and historically significant issue.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts of my Labour colleague, Mr Whitehead, to put forward measures to establish a European Food Authority to deal with food safety and the concerns of consumers. With such a host of alarming reports on food safety, it is imperative to protect Europe's people and our safety standards in food. With this in mind, I support Mr Whitehead's proposal to include the word 'safety' in the title of the body to read European Food Safety Authority. We must put safety first and make sure that harmful substances do not enter the food chain unseen by the back door. Furthermore, the remit of the Authority should be extended to include animal health and welfare, plant health, GMOs and food labelling. Of course, the health and well-being of our citizens is of paramount importance. We are calling for an Authority that has a clear and targeted remit to examine issues of food safety and is founded on the principles of transparency and meritocracy. Labour MEPs have been at the forefront of protecting consumers across Europe. We have consistently backed proposals to ensure that food safety is strictly controlled within the EU. Mr Whitehead's report is yet further proof of Europe cleaning up its act and putting the safety of our citizens first. Only with clear principles and a specific mission will the EFSA win the confidence of EU consumers and the entire EU food industry. - Paulsen reports (A5-0185/2001 and A5-0200/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to call on Mr Méndez de Vigo to withdraw his amendment. He is asking us to make a decision on a crucial issue that I know is very important to the Spanish people. We are indebted to Felipe González, the former Prime Minister of Spain, for introducing the concept of European citizenship into the Treaties. He was also responsible for developing the concept to such a great extent. I do not however consider this to be a purely linguistic or philosophical issue. It is an issue of crucial importance. It forms the basis of the legitimacy of the European Union. Does Parliament want to discard the traditional definition of a Union of States and of peoples and adopt the concept of a Union of States and citizens? It seems to me that if we want to preserve the good name of the European Union, it would be better to give this question the attention it deserves, rather than to take hasty action in approving an amendment to one of the recitals of a report on a totally different subject.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was extremely distressed by what Mr Deva said, since he insinuated that we were not fighting to eradicate poverty, but that we Spaniards had other kinds of interest. The truth is that I felt bad, and I would also feel bad if I did not say this here, since we are working together with the Committee on Development to eradicate poverty: to eradicate poverty in Asia and in Latin America.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I must point out that a linguistic correction needs to be made to the Italian text. As you know, this resolution was negotiated in English. In item 5, the expression ‘notably a directive’ is translated in Italian as ‘ad esempio una direttiva’ (‘for instance a directive’). I do not consider this appropriate and I think it should be corrected.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the European Union can no longer confine itself to observing from afar what is happening on the other side of the Mediterranean and clear its conscience by making mainly generous donations of funds, the use of which it has not always been able to regulate, as Commissioner Patten has just reminded us in so timely a fashion. The European Union must accept its due responsibilities, alongside our American counterparts. This is what you are striving to achieve, Mr Solana, in close collaboration with Mr Moratinos and many of us welcome the work that you have undertaken to this end. Whilst waiting for the results of the changes taking place in Washington and those which will inevitably follow the results of the forthcoming elections in Israel, we understand that you are bound to be cautious and that it is difficult for you to make any sort of forecast at this time, Mr Solana, even if we might have detected a note of optimism in your speech, something we should be only too delighted to share. The view of the Group of the European People’s Party, one I am sure is shared by many of the Members in other political groups, is that, through your work, the European Union should be involved, perfectly impartially, in the current Conciliation Procedure in order to enable the expected appeasement that comes before the hoped-for reconciliation to be reached. The European Union can put itself forward as mediator only on condition that it is impartial. It cannot be neutral, as if it were not already directly involved. Yet, unfortunately, this is not the impression that was recently given by the European Union, when it showed that it was divided in its opinion in the vote within the United Nations General Assembly of 20 October 2000. Mr Solana, if you are to speak on behalf of the European Union, we must show a united front. So what is the state of affairs? I direct the question to you as well as to the Council representative. In your work with the governments of the Member States, have you noticed any commitment to harmonising our points of view? That is my first question. My second question is directed to both the Council and the Commission. It is the same question that I asked you in the previous debate, Mr Solana, when you could not find the time to give an answer. Do you not think that the time has come for the European Union to take some intelligent action on the status of Jerusalem? As I recall, we heard the Speaker of the Knesset and his Palestinian counterpart make some courageous proposals at Strasbourg. Mr Solana, can we count on you to make it clear to your fellow negotiators, in the necessary diplomatic and firm manner, that Jerusalem is not just a city sacred to Judaism and Islam but also to all forms of Christianity?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I fully endorse the recommendations in Mr Bullmann’s report, particularly the appeal to respect some of the goals established at Lisbon, which are based on a vision of the welfare state in which it is not just a mere appendage to economic policy but an essential part of a sustainable development policy seeking to achieve full employment and raise the quality of employment. I also support many of the – sound – recommendations made in Mr Karas’ report. However, the strategic role assumed at Lisbon by the research and development policies of promoting education and lifelong learning and increasing the active population and the employment of older workers requires that these goals be part of an economic and social policy developed and decided by a single entity according to an agreed decision-making process, not least using forms of open cooperation. From this point of view, the delays which have accumulated in public and private investment in research and lifelong training, which – I would remind you again – make the processes of mobility and flexibility dependent on the achievement of the absolutely imperative conditions of security and employability, are cause for concern. Still more disturbing, however, are signs of a slackening of efforts to develop a policy mix which combines responsibility for coordinating economic policies promoting sustainable development with responsibility for coordinating the employment and social cohesion policies, introducing a new era in social dialogue. If the significance of this sort of approach, which seems currently to prevail – that is, separating once again the common economic policy, which is, moreover, often implicit, from social policy, which is in danger of being relegated to the status of an auxiliary policy – were not actually to be acknowledged at Barcelona or if it were not to be openly discussed, that would irreparably compromise the goals set at Lisbon for the period 2002-2010. This danger is all the more serious in that it appears to coincide with the aim of a transnational political front which is openly seeking to distort the strategic content of the Lisbon decisions. This is the case with a document signed by the Italian and British Heads of Government which endorses not structural reform but deregulation of the labour market and the abolition of collective bargaining, making it subject to voluntary opting-in of individual employers and workers. This is a violation of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which cannot be accepted or endorsed at Barcelona.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, further to the questions already raised by many of the Members in their speeches, starting with the Commissioner, the rapporteur and Mr Ojeda, I believe that this is a proposal for a directive which has technical content but cannot be reduced to just technical points. I would stress, and the reasons for this have already been emphasised, the importance of being able to recognise the qualifications of seafarers from third countries on the common bases of established qualifications, without fear of fraud; the need to simplify the procedures adopted thus far and turn to account the work of the Commission and the European Maritime Safety Agency, overcoming the difficulties and unilateral aspects of the procedures underway relating to individual certificates of capability. Against the backdrop of these factors and the solutions proposed, which we support – and in doing so pay tribute to the excellent work of the rapporteur and the conclusions which have, at last, been reached through consultation with the Council and the trialogues held – stands the essential need to reduce by some means the level of human error contributing to risks of disaster, of maritime accidents which, as we know, have taken place in the past. There is something else, however: we are dealing with the adoption of a proposal for a directive related to the opening up of the market in port services, for example, which is intended to regulate competition opportunities linked to this development too, while rigorously safeguarding the requirements of safety, environmental protection and social protection and, therefore, in this case too, the indispensable requirements of training and professional qualifications for crew members, requirements which must be taken as the basis for authorisation procedures and also for private supply and self-handling measures. For these reasons, it is of crucial importance to be able to depend on guaranteed minimum qualification requirements for crew members, whatever their country of origin. For the same reasons, I will make just one last point regarding the proposals that have been illustrated by the rapporteur. I refer to Amendment No 10, which gives crew members from third countries employed on ships flying the flag of the individual Member States equal conditions of access to qualifications and lifelong training processes. I believe that we must not waste this opportunity and that we must insist on a solution which I feel to be appropriate, which is that proposed by the Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, if voices other than ours had not been raised in the last few days, to give the Iranian Government a warning, thirteen Iranians charged with espionage just for being in touch with relatives in other parts of the world would, at this very moment, be facing trial behind closed doors under summary procedure, leaving them no chance of their most basic rights to a defence being guaranteed. You have just heard confirmation, from Mr Sylla, that this planned mock trial is at least going to be adjourned for a few days. That means there is the utmost justification for dealing with Parliament’s second joint resolution on this issue under urgent procedure. It also means there is a chance this resolution – expressing our indignation – might be heard in Iran, where the results of the recent elections have raised the hope of progress there on fundamental human rights. As everyone who has already spoken has said, it is our duty to ensure that those rights are respected.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. Could you let us know exactly how Question Time is going to be organised now? Will questions to the Commission – ostensibly due between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. – be taken?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a point of order: it is standard practice in the House for questions which cannot be adequately answered orally to be submitted I would ask the President-in-Office to at least answer our questions in writing if he cannot do so orally.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also wish to thank the Chairman and rapporteur of the committee, Mrs Redondo Jiménez and Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, who have been excellent in the way they have handled this committee. In particular, I thank them for allowing the committee to visit Northumberland, in my region, where the disease originated. I do not have time to cover all the issues now but I want to point out in particular that it is very likely that the disease was caused by illegal imports of meat. One of my great concerns is that, although this is well known, we still do not have proper controls in place at our ports and airports to prevent further illegal meat imports. There is much anecdotal evidence in the UK that large amounts of illegal meat are still entering the country. I would ask the Commissioner to address that in his response tomorrow, because it is a time bomb waiting to go off. The disease could easily happen again anywhere in Europe. People were particularly grateful to have the opportunity to submit their comments to the committee members in person. Never again must we see the enormous funeral pyres all over the landscape of the north-east of England, which had such a devastating effect on the tourist industry and all related industries, not just agriculture. Above all, despite the efforts of some Members of this Parliament, I hope that we will learn the lessons from the outbreak of this disease and ensure that it never happens again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Is the Commissioner aware of research at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Invergowrie near Dundee that shows that tobacco plants can be genetically modified to accept the implanting for multiplication of potential anti-cancer vaccines? It is quite ironic really. Would it not be desirable to redirect the European tobacco-growing industry towards such benign purposes and to further promote this type of research?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, given the tragic nature of the disaster off the coast of Galicia and the other Member States which have since been affected by the oil tragedy, there is great solidarity and support in this House for our colleagues in Galicia. Therefore, I would urge the House to support the switching of EUR 30 million. This money would otherwise have been used to compensate those who lost their livelihoods when we failed to renegotiate the Morocco Agreement. Since those funds are no longer required for compensation, they will be earmarked for helping the victims of the Prestige tragedy. I would urge the House to support this and show solidarity with the beleaguered fishermen and families in Galicia. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am also going to refer to the report by Mr Langen, which concerns aid to the steel industry. I agree with the rapporteur on two issues. Firstly, I agree on the need to guarantee equal conditions for aid to all Member States and, secondly, on the need for transparency with regard to this aid. We agree with the rapporteur regarding his criticism of the fact that, despite the rules laid down in the sixth Steel Aid Code, the Commission has frequently authorised aid to companies which do not correspond to the categories in that Code. However, the thing that worries us most, Mr President, is the decrease in prices, by 30%, owing to imports. The reason for this decrease is unfair competition from South Korea and Taiwan, in the case of steel, as a result of their different working conditions and conditions governing aid. Orders in the steel industry and the ship-building industry – we also spoke about this a while ago – have decreased drastically, resulting in a loss of jobs. I live in a region where the ship-building industry now has very serious problems: Asturias. With global markets, we need global employment laws and global subsidies. I know this is difficult to achieve now, but if we do not achieve fair employment laws for all workers, here and elsewhere, and we do not secure equitable subsidies for all countries, here and elsewhere, it will be difficult to preserve jobs in Europe and outside it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
First of all, I should like to say that I, too, concur with what Mr Walter said. Of course it is not very logical for the Copenhagen European Council to say that an evaluation will take place in 2004 as to whether or not Turkey can become a member, and whether or not the negotiations can begin, while at the same time saying that Turkey can be put in Category 7: the pre-accession category. I have a question regarding heading 6 of the financial perspective. If I have understood correctly, you have not said anything about this. Has the Commission or the Council ever considered expanding the Guarantee Reserve in connection with the increased activities of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London, in the new Member States? My second question is as follows: there was always a monetary reserve, which had to do with the CAP, and especially with those countries which were not members of the euro zone. We are soon to be joined by ten countries, none of which is to be a member of the euro zone. Is the monetary reserve now no longer necessary, and what are the reasons for this?

Political group: ELDR
The European Parliament has fought for the Directive on Cosmetics to be extended and deepened, especially in the field of testing on animals. Parliament was therefore calling for: a ban on animal testing from 2004; a ban on the marketing of products that have been tested on animals five years after the adoption of this directive and the promotion of alternative testing methods that do not involve experiments on animals. Unfortunately, the original position of the European Commission was to advocate a ban on animal testing in the European area rather than a ban on the marketing of such products. I welcome the fact that, in the conciliation process, both the Council and the Commission moved towards the position maintained by the European Parliament. I am also pleased that an agreement was reached, stipulating a ban on experimenting and marketing for most testing methods within six years and, with regard to tests for which alternative methods have not yet been tested, a ten-year transposition period for this ban. - Swiebel report (A5-0451/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Total/Fina/Elf group is already guilty of committing a crime against the environment through the shipwreck of the oil tanker Erika and has acted criminally, once again, with the explosion of the AZF factory in Toulouse: 29 people are dead, more than 2 500 injured and a whole community ravaged. Like my fellow speakers, I fully share the pain of all men and women in Toulouse and most particularly, the pain of the victims’ families. It is our duty, however, to ensure that everything is done to clarify responsibilities. First of all, the responsibilities of TotalFinaElf, who allowed the stored fertiliser to turn into a chemical bomb by cutting costs on production, inspections and safety. TotalFinaElf must pay. It must compensate the victims and guarantee the salaries of its employees given that it has the cheek to announce aid for the community that totals one year’s salary for just one employee: its managing director. Next, there is the responsibility of the public authorities, the local council which, for the sake of business taxes, allowed a chemical plant to exist in a working class residential area. Also the government itself, which waited until 1999 to implement the Seveso II directive, which was voted for in 1996, and was a clearly inadequate directive. Legislation must be strengthened and its implementation must be verified by independent inspectors from within the public service. The safety of people and the environment is too serious a matter to be left to shareholders and speculators. It is for communities, employees, unions and workers’ associations to determine, through a public and democratic debate, which types of production are socially useful or are considered to be too dangerous. This kind of choice cannot be left to the discretion of people who have proved to be unable to guarantee people’s safety. It is the responsibility of a public system of management, under the control of the community at large and the employees. Let us not allow the law of profit to pollute and murder again. Indeed, Never again!

Political group: GUE-NGL