GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, we appear to have lost our elementary knowledge of biology. For tens of thousands of years, our forefathers have known that corpses, both animal and human, have to be buried or burned. They have to return to the great cycle of nature and become new materials. Nowadays, we seem to believe that natural cycles of this kind imply re-use and that animals we shall be eating ourselves should be fed with dead animals of their own species. We need to regain a holistic understanding and realise that whatever we put onto our fields we get back in the form of bread and, above all, drinking water, which is also an important form of sustenance. What we give animals to eat, we later find on our own plates. There is a need for openness and public scrutiny at every link in the food chain. That is our best form of inspection. It is obvious that consumer groups, environmental organisations and the media should have free access to farms and to factories manufacturing foods and animal feedingstuffs. The European Union needs a clear and precise set of regulations governing food safety. This would not distort the market if it were the same for everyone. It must cover agriculture, the methods we use for rearing animals, the feedingstuffs and medicines which animals are given and, of course, how the raw materials are handled subsequently. It is quite a simple matter to produce a set of regulations but very difficult indeed to monitor compliance with them. What is needed in fact is intensive collaboration and interaction at local and district levels. The European Union must create some form of supervisory system for supervising the inspectors.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I too wish to speak once again on the subject of deplorable and avoidable deaths. This time in memory of six Galician seamen who died in a tragic accident while working in Scottish waters a few days ago. They are to be buried in their own country this afternoon. At such a time, I appeal to the executive authority of the Union and to this Parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to help improve the living and working conditions in the fishing industry so that we can, as far as possible, avoid this type of accident which, these days, particularly afflicts the seamen of Galicia. ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, at the heart of my political group's approach to the Durban conference is a renewed determination to tackle racism and to discover what was positive about this conference. I say renewed because racism in its many forms has reared its head again, with the tragic events in New York and Washington. We have now a danger that a renewed wave of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism will come if we do not tackle racism and its root causes. That illustrated the tragedy of this conference, because I felt I attended two conferences. One was a historic conference where delegations, like our own European Union delegation, were determined to register that racism is a major human rights issue. We were determined to define for the first time racism in its many international forms, whether caste, a contemporary slavery, or whether discrimination against minorities within our own European Union and indeed the candidate countries. We were determined to do something about racism, to show that with Article 13 we in the European Union had something to say to the rest of the world about how we were approaching our own problems. Yet there was a second conference that I attended, full of confusion, of individual national agendas, a determination not to define racism in different countries because of an embarrassment as to what racism represented in those countries. The confusion arose over the much misunderstood issue of reparations, and indeed the very destructive issue of Zionism and the problems in the Middle East, overshadowed our conference. We have to be determined that the first conference, with the ideals we as a delegation defined for it, are renewed in this House today. That requires a united front. It requires us not to just say that Durban was chaotic, therefore we will leave it that way for history. Instead, we as a European Union united, the Commission, the Belgian Presidency – which did an excellent job – those who attended the conference and all of us within this House who want to tackle racism must unite to go back to the original agenda. That original agenda is one which may embarrass some individual countries, but the action programme is now there. It is there for us to exploit and it is there for us to do something about. The issue is not whether this is a failure or not, it is about whether we can now make it a success by renewed determination within this House to get back to the action programme and make progress.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have rejected the report on the employment policy. Together with the Commission, we have established that a great deal is left to be desired in the Member States when it comes to implementing the employment policy, as laid down in the guidelines. But we wonder whether the Commission has taken sufficient account of the differences in welfare within the Member States themselves and the large discrepancies in terms of employment between the various regions. Take Belgium. The unemployment rate in Flanders is 8.2%, that in Wallonia is 24.5%. You will understand that Flanders and Wallonia have adopted one and the same policy on taxation and social security but this is inadequate. There should be scope for clearly different regional policies to be pursued. Regional statistics need to be made available in order to go in this direction. I regret that the Commission does not use this regional reality as a basic principle, because I am convinced that both a regional and a European approach are necessary. But then in order to do this it is also essential that we have regional figures at our disposal, as those supplied by the Member States distort regional reality.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the gene technology industry has been promising us much for decades. It is supposed to heal diseases, solve the problem of world hunger and create better people. What have we seen in that time? Many dangers have appeared, people have already died in experiments, hunger has not been wiped out and better human beings have not been created. I think these problems are the result not of a technology but of the power structures prevailing in this society. Firstly, there is twice as much food in the world as would be needed to feed everyone adequately. It is a question of distribution. Secondly, sickness is caused by environmental conditions, and these cannot be changed by technology but by changing the conditions. Thirdly, we will only get a better human being if we allow more self-determination, if we allow people more freedom, but we will not do it simply by means of a new technology. Biotechnology on the other hand creates more selection, has already resulted in a new form of genetic racism, and we must resist that with all our might. This report puts all the power in the hands of the gene technology industry and we can therefore only reject it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
No compromise is entirely satisfactory. The compromise on GMOs in favour of which the European Parliament has just voted means simply that it was impossible to take the negotiations any further. The moratorium on GMOs will therefore be lifted, as desired by the Member States. The 0.5% threshold beyond which the adherents of the precautionary principle wanted the presence of GMOs to be indicated would not have obtained a qualified majority either in Parliament or in the Council. To my regret, the vote has therefore gone in favour of a threshold of 0.9%. Nonetheless, there are significant benefits to this compromise, because there has also been a vote in favour of greater traceability, which will enable consumers to be more vigilant, will make for tough regulations when it comes to detecting GMOs and will make precise labelling possible, as well as the ability to distinguish clearly between GMO and non-GMO production. Transparency has won the day, even if the precautionary principle looks a little the worse for wear. It is not a victory, but the amendments voted in favour of are important markers that will need to be further augmented in the future. That is why I have voted in favour of the Scheele report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will be very brief. All I want to say is that we are in danger, as has been emphasised, of repeating the same things. We will be repeating the same things in ten years' time because there have been considerable delays in conducting scientific research into prions. We have known about prions for 15 years Commissioner Byrne, but after 15 years we do not know which molecular mechanisms are responsible for neurodegeneration, we do not know if they pass through the placenta barrier, we do not know if they pass into milk, we do not have rapid tests... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
As a co-sponsor with my colleague, Mr Watts, of amendments which were put forward in the trans-European networks on a strategic environmental impact assessment some four years ago at least, I find it quite surprising that it is said to be too early to talk about a comprehensive strategy in this particular direction. If it is too early to do that, surely the Council can provide us with some information about how it will properly coordinate this comprehensive strategy – when it comes into existence – across the various Councils.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, during the formal and informal debate on this issue over the last few weeks and months, both the Commission and the Council have indicated that it is not the business of the European Parliament to stick its nose into the substance of WTO cases. I broadly agree. The Council and the Commission have also indicated that they think it is none of the European Parliament's business to issue awkward declarations on issues which are basically sub judice. Again, under normal circumstances, I would agree. But I would ask the Council and the Commission to tell me what we are supposed to do when we ask both of them in committee several times for justifications of how and why the decision was taken to launch this highly sensitive case and we get no more than a mere technocratic response. What are we supposed to do when we are told the decision was taken over lunch, not even by ministers, but over lunch in some obscure Council working group without any minutes to justify to the public or, indeed, to politicians such as ourselves, why the EU is launching yet another politically sensitive trade dispute? What strikes me is the sheer naivety of both the Commission and the Council in tackling such a highly political issue as if it were nothing more than a technical decision. It is simply inconceivable that the US Administration in Washington would rush headlong into yet another trade dispute with the EU without first ensuring there is a minimum of political backing in Congress. I find it very striking that both the Commission and the Council have failed to do that this time. It has been suggested that those who have signed this hotly worded declaration were behaving irresponsibly. Some Members of this Parliament feel it was irresponsible. It is surely much more irresponsible to launch such a politically and commercially sensitive trade dispute without even a ritual nod towards the normal standards of transparency and political probity. It is not an issue of reforming Article 133. It is simply expecting both the Commission and the Council to conduct trade policy, particularly on politically sensitive issues, in a more transparent and politically intelligent manner.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment requires clarification. I personally am in favour of its substance, and, like the majority in this House, I also voted in favour of it at first reading stage, but the Council could not be persuaded to accept it. We have just voted on a compromise with the Council. Amendment No 38 is not part of the compromise package agreed with the Council, but Amendment No 58 is, and replaces it. I believe that if we vote in favour of Amendment No 58, we will be making it possible for the directive to be adopted without a conciliation procedure. That does not mean that Parliament has changed its mind in this matter; indeed, we made this clear not only at first reading but also, repeatedly, on other occasions. In this procedure, though, we should not insist on the amendment. Somebody asked me, ‘How, if you have principles, can you compromise on such important issues?’ I believe that Europe demands compromises of us in matters of policy in order that we may make progress. I do not believe that politics should be left to people who have no principles. That is why I ask you to vote against Amendment No 38 and in favour of Amendment No 58. (Applause) (The President declared the common position approved as amended) *** Report (A5-0469/2003) by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on takeover bids (COM(2002) 534 – C5-0481/2002 – 2002/0240(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) After the vote:

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding here, as there are two proposals: one which proposes that the point concerning the accident in Ustica be replaced, and another which proposes that the point concerning the earthquake in Taiwan be replaced. I think there has been a misunderstanding and many Members of this Parliament do not know exactly which proposal they are voting for. I am sorry that we are in the process of taking a vote, but this is the situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, two minutes, six points. First of all, Saddam Hussein is already a hardened war criminal. He clearly intends to continue. The only remaining doubt concerns the means still available to him. Secondly, no situation, however serious, justifies contravening the fundamental principle of public and private morality, in other words, we must not use means that jeopardise the achievement of the objective we are pursuing. Our objective here is to build peace, to refuse pre-emptive war in favour of negotiations, weapons inspections and the establishment of the Rule of Law. Thirdly, I have rarely seen situations in which so little attention is paid to the study of what could occur should force be used. We are only discussing the legitimacy of the decision and decision-taking procedures. We are not considering what this could lead to. Mr President, Europe already has a Military Staff. We are preparing a rapid-reaction force. We should at least ask it to consider the various possible consequences. Quite frankly, I have never seen such a lack of reflection. Fourthly, President-in-Office of the Council, Europe needs a strong, clear, public position, and is capable of this. Many of us have asked you to communicate the European Union’s position in writing to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and make it public. Fifthly, the main thing in this matter is to adhere to the UN rules on two counts. The first is to convince the United Nations not to change the rules once the game has begun. This is also part of behaving with common decency at an international level. The second aspect proposes solving the problem in two stages: first, with regard to inspectors and their right of work, and second, lastly, taking account of what would happen should Saddam refuse, in other words the use of Chapter 7 of the Charter. We are not pacifists. I believe it is possible to have recourse to force. Saddam Hussein is dangerous, but it is the legality of this operation that is key, in particular with regard to the world as a whole. Lastly, Mr President, all this is not at all anti-American. On the contrary, it involves preserving the Rule of Law with the agreement of an overwhelming majority – as shown by surveys – of the American people today, in order to prevent a government, intoxicated by its own strength, from forgetting the law when it thinks of the power it could use.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, let me say from the outset that I condemn terrorism wherever it takes place. But I condemn in particular the attacks on the Indian Parliament and the US cultural centre. There is no justification for terrorism, whatever the perceived provocation. But we have to look at the root causes of terrorism. That is why I am delighted that we have widened this resolution, even though we were unable to change the title; I would not like us to think that we are linking any country or organisation with these attacks. We still have no real knowledge of who perpetrated them so I am very pleased that the Indian government is investigating it and that Pakistan is helping with that investigation. It gives me the opportunity to address the wider problem: the threat of war again between India and Pakistan. I welcome President Musharraf's announcement that he is clamping down on terrorism, but it is also important to look at the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, which has been going on for over 50 years. I repeat the call for the EU to offer its services as a facilitator to both sides and to take account of the relevant UN resolutions. What I am proposing is something similar to what Senator Mitchell did in Northern Ireland. The people who continue to suffer are the ordinary people and civilians of India, Pakistan and Kashmir. People who say a facilitator provided by the EU, the Commonwealth or the UN is no way forward are not offering any alternative. We have to find an alternative to the bloodshed and to the continuation of this dispute. I hope we will vote for the resolution, to demonstrate not only our horror of terrorism but also the desire to find a solution to the tension within this region.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank the Commission for their balanced and pragmatic proposal and Mr Marinho for his report and for his willingness to cooperate in a constructive manner. The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs adopted this report by a large majority and thereby confirmed the rapporteur in his views. The Commission proposal represents a perceptible advance on the Dublin Convention and is thus an important step towards the establishment of a common European asylum system. The most important innovations are: Firstly, the emphasis laid on the responsibility of the individual Member States when such Member States permit persons who have entered them illegally to remain in their national territory. Secondly, the adaptation of the procedural time limits to the time limits for the granting and revocation of refugee status, ensuring that applications for asylum can be processed speedily. Thirdly, the introduction of provisions aimed at maintaining the unity of the asylum seeker's family. The procedures for determining which Member State is responsible are also intended to serve the purpose of sharing burdens fairly. The making of the application in a specified Member State must not, therefore, create a fait accompli; that is, it must not determine responsibility. This requirement is taken into account by the measures intended to simplify procedures and simultaneously speed them up, while maintaining the principle of responsibility, as does the planned less onerous burden of proof when determining which Member State is responsible. It was thanks to a compromise with the rapporteur that we in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs were able to adopt a report that disregarded impractical and unacceptable amendments. This opens up the possibility of the Commission, Parliament and the Council finding together a rational way of deciding on the responsibility of Member States in asylum matters. The excluded amendments, which envisaged a widening of the family circle and the deletion of essential parts of the Regulation, were now reintroduced. The Group of the rejects these amendments, particularly as regards their indiscriminate extension of the family circle, which would include, for example, dependant family members outside the nuclear family. In the same way, when we vote tomorrow, we should give a clear rebuff to the idea of deleting essential parts of the Regulation. Let me repeat: the Commission proposal is realistic and balanced. It offers an array of improvements in comparison with the Dublin Convention. There are no grounds for trying to recast this draft in a form that will, at the end of the day, benefit neither the applicants for asylum nor the Member States. Thank you for your cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted in favour of the motion of censure because I believe that this Commission has failed to deliver the reforms it was asked to get on with five years ago. We have had fine words, a lot of wind and bluster from the Commissioner in charge of reforms, Mr Kinnock, but it seems that although the Commissioner can talk the talk he has failed to walk the walk. I was elected on a manifesto commitment to fight fraud and maladminstration and it is very difficult to explain to my voters, the good people of Louth and Horncastle or of Derbyshire, why for ten years the accounts have not been signed off by the European Court of Auditors. These problems are significant and typified by Eurostat and have failed to be addressed. This motion of censure is not just about Eurostat but about the management culture that this exhibits, which goes unchecked. Mr Solbes might well have gone, but the lack of political responsibility within the Commission remains. This Commission deserves to be censured and future Commissioners need to know that they will be made politically responsible for the actions of those they direct.

Political group: PPE-DE
Whilst I fully agree with the aims of the proposals we are now looking at, which are to reduce delays in European air transport through the more efficient use of Member States’ airspace and to maintain high levels of safety, I do have concerns that I have always voiced about the content of these proposals. In this context I wish to refer to three crucial points in the agreement that has just been concluded: the decision that functional blocks will fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States, which cannot be changed by the European Union, the recognition that more efficient use of airspace depends on closer cooperation between civil and military organisations and the right of each Member State to have total freedom in appointing the service provider, under the auspices of the national supervisory authorities and without having to defer to any other body.

Political group: PPE-DE