GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President–in–Office of the Council, Commissioner, half a year after the operation carried out by the Castro Government against internal dissidents – the most significant since the triumph of the Castro revolution – more than 70 internal dissidents – including promoters of the Varela Project, trade unionists and independent journalists – imprisoned for the sole crime of dissenting from official policy and freely expressing their opinion, remain in prison in conditions which, furthermore, clearly violate the most fundamental principles of humanitarian law and which genuinely threaten the lives of some of them. I am thinking in particular of Oscar Espinosa Chepe who is today hospitalised in the prison ward of the Finlay Military Hospital in Havana, seriously ill as the result of chronic cirrhosis of the liver – from which he suffered at the time of his arrest – and which has been aggravated by his weakness and the bad prison conditions and hygiene to which he has been subjected. In view of this situation and in view of the facts it is essential that we reiterate our unanimous condemnation of the Castro regime and demand the immediate release of all political prisoners, and it is also essential that we express our solidarity with the Cuban people, who most directly suffer the consequences of the lack of freedoms and demonstrate to them through action – rather than words – that we wish to help them to take the road of peaceful transition towards democracy they have set out upon. As the Uruguayan poet Eduardo Galeano said, Cuba hurts. It does indeed hurt to see political, economic and social freedoms continuing to be violated. And because we in this Parliament are hurt by it – and today we are receiving representatives of those countries which had been deprived of freedom under the Soviet totalitarian regime – we wish to tell them that they should not lose hope. We wish to tell them that no dictator can suffocate the right to rights in relation to aspirations for freedom and democracy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I believe that the real tragedy is that we so often have to speak about the different catastrophes which lay waste to certain parts of the world more often than others, and also perhaps countries which, since they are affected by greater poverty and weaker infrastructures, pay a much higher price than if they were stronger. And the same can be said of their citizens, because in the case of Venezuela there are – as in the case of the ‘Mitch’ disaster – numerous fatal casualties. Naturally, we are asking the European institutions to provide economic aid – which they have already provided; they have proposed EUR 3 500 000 to help with immediate expenses – but we are also asking them to cooperate in other ways with the Government and citizens of Venezuela. This very week we have discussed a disaster which happened in Europe and we mentioned – and many experts confirm this – that climate change could have something to do with the continual proliferation of disasters wrongly described as ‘natural’. We believe that man has something to do with it. In the case of Venezuela – we had the opportunity to go there for the Conference between the European Parliament and the Latin American Parliament –rampant urbanisation and attacks on the environment, which perhaps exacerbate these situations, are clearly visible. Therefore, Mr President, we have to attend to the urgent need to rebuild all the infrastructures. The European institutions, the Member countries and certain non-governmental organisations must cooperate with other countries, so that the effects of this catastrophe, which has caused irreversible damage, can be alleviated as much as possible.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Hudghton, also for this report. Scottish salmon farming is the biggest in the European Union and accommodates 90% of the British aquacultural industry. The industry is located in some of Europe’s most peripheral communities providing an economic lifeline to those communities. In recent research it is estimated that the industry is worth EUR 800 million per annum and 6 500 jobs rely on its existence. I believe that this report gives a clear method for dealing with Infectious Salmon Anaemia which is both practical, realistic and also achievable. The example of Norway demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach. As for the amendments, I oppose the amendments tabled by Mr Hudghton’s Green colleagues, that is numbers 7 to 13, not because I do not care about the risks to human health but because, according to scientific evidence, the virus does not survive beyond 25o Celsius and according to medical evidence, human beings at that temperature are dead. There is a saying that the dead tell no tales and I am sure they do not eat fish but I do and I look forward to the implementation of this report.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is a little odd that I should have to take the floor on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, but that is because Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, who has written the opinion for Mr Bouwman’s report – on which I should like to congratulate him warmly – is unable to attend due to a change in schedule. I can, in fact, be relatively brief about the opinion. Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has particularly attempted to underline the legal aspects of this directive. A number of elements have been adopted, while a number of other elements have not been adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. In any case, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market deems it extremely important for the opinion to be thought-out well. That is why it is also important to return it to the committee, so that it can re-examined very carefully. That also – and perhaps mainly – applies to the position of the self-employed. Indeed, I welcome the fact that the self-employed fall within its scope, at least the self-employed who can be compared to employees. However, there is, of course, the risk that we give people who we actually do not want to fall within the scope of this definition at all, a tremendous opportunity, turning them into a kind of preferred creditor in a bankruptcy. I am not certain whether in the texts as they are worded now, sufficient distinction is being drawn between the two situations, in fact. That is a problem that will require further examination, also in terms of the position of the self-employed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, President of the EBRD, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur on his careful analysis of the EBRD’s activities. The choice of economic activities must combine the local dimension with the international and requires a supply of credit not only to encourage the emergence of initiatives that are well established within a country but also to help them spread to other markets. It is certainly the job of the EBRD to do this, but it is even more important to try to do it in countries with little industrial development, which have a greater need for support and revitalisation. If, in order to achieve this objective, it needs to take risks and, in some cases, accept unexpected losses, it must not then cut out initiatives and planned investments but rather benefit from new experiences so that it can manage lending more attentively and read the risks more carefully. This bank takes an ethical approach to credit management. Its institutional commitment is to invest in any country that is inspired by democratic principles and determined to promote a market economy. The first time, the bank asks clients for valid projects, with current market prices; it also requires that there should be no conflicts of interest or dominant positions in the operational area to be financed, and that the interests of the local community should always be respected. In the public sector, the EBRD calls for the greatest transparency to be employed in order to ensure competition and equal treatment for the market players. We welcome and support the rapporteur’s views when he urges the EBRD to support small local banks, which, in turn, should focus on small–scale lending. At this point, Mr President, allow me to sound an alarm: small bank lending is disappearing or is being considerably cut back. This is a matter for concern, because no economic or financial manoeuvre, however good it may be, could replace the support that small banks have always offered to small and medium–sized enterprises. We must also note that small–scale lending in many Member States and particularly the accession states is being thoroughly neglected; that leads to a daily increase in financial exclusion, which is the existence of serious gaps in the supply of small–scale credit services in the countries with the weakest economies, where a form of discrimination based on geographical criteria arises: red–lining. It is up to the EBRD, which has already chosen to operate in countries such as Albania, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Moldova, to help to integrate these disadvantaged economies fully into the international economic order.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the executive difficulties, together with the potential of the Lisbon Strategy, lie principally in its comprehensive, integrated nature. Despite some timid progress, the basic idea of integrating economic, social and environmental policies has not seen any significant, coherent progress at either Member State or Community level. If we totally accept the view that social and environmental quality is not incidental, but an element of growth and an essential factor of competitiveness, then I believe that the open cooperation method must be strengthened. I therefore applaud the fact that, in the Convention, the possibility of granting it constitutional status seems to be gaining support. Experience teaches us that objectives as ambitious as those involved in the concept of sustainable development cannot be attained without a strong, common lead from all social and institutional quarters. Regarding environmental policies in particular, without the adoption of plans and incentives at all levels, it is hard to imagine that more eco-compatible production and consumption models will really take off, models to which we are also committed under the Johannesburg Summit conclusions. We therefore need to ensure that all interested parties are persuaded to adopt innovative and responsible practices, by including them in medium and long-term outlooks. In this connection, I consider it a grave limitation that Parliament has not yet managed to formulate organisational and procedural methods in order to monitor, appraise and guide sustainable development policies in a truly effective – that is, multidisciplinary – way. It is right to call for Parliament’s effective participation in the formulation of the broad guidelines to be guaranteed in the Interinstitutional Agreement, but we too must make better preparations to achieve our goal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think there has been a problem with the translations into Spanish, because in the Folias report too, there are clear differences between the English text, which is the authentic one, and the Spanish text. In particular, I should like the translation of Section 19 to be reviewed. There may be problems in general, but particularly Section 19 in Spanish is totally different from the English original.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, just one specific question: when will the debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance start, given that it was quite definitely and firmly set for 3 to 5.30 p.m.? This really is a mess! At what time will it start? I have a right to know.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group agrees with the modification of the agenda proposed by the Group. However, given the seriousness of the events taking place, I would firstly like to add that we support the statement of the High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Solana, of 20 September; secondly, I would ask you – since no specific resolution on this issue is scheduled – to communicate, on behalf of Parliament, the resolution approved in April; and, thirdly, in the current circumstances, my group believes that the two hopeful amendments to the Brok report on the situation in the Middle East should be withdrawn.

Political group: PSE
My concern when voting was primarily with the protection of Dutch legislation dating from 1999, which intends to put temporary work on a more equal footing with normal work and to protect against abuses. Without such legislation, employers can take advantage of temporary workers and rob groups of employees of their basic security, pay them lower wages, offer them less say, force them to work under worse conditions, make early dismissal possible or break strikes of others. The intention is to create dependency by preventing people from moving on to permanent positions at the businesses that originally hired them. Temporary work is admissible only if it is a free choice on the part of the people involved, albeit in the service of the temping agency, and if they have all the normal rights of employees. The two largest groups have reached a compromise that prevents the more far-reaching protection that my group has proposed. Despite this, Dutch employers are trying to persuade their counterparts in other Member States and the Right-wing section in this Parliament to reject even this minimum level of protection and to ensure that the rules are either rejected or relaxed. In doing so, they are hoping to cut costs and increase temporary work. I can only vote in favour if they are frustrated in what they seek to do.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I voted against this measure on the European policy on flax and hemp. This is because I feel that we should change the way we support and provide aid to agricultural products in the European Union. We should start to let go of the policy of giving a sum of money to the producers of a particular agricultural product which we want to support, and endeavour, instead, to reduce the burdens of production costs, burdens which are mainly the result of national State policies and which push up the cost of labour, tying the hands of those who wish to work, produce and increase the number of jobs in their sector. Basically, we must start to change the way we provide aid to agriculture in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I come from Sweden where we have quite a high degree of exposure to competition and privatisation of various services. The lesson to be drawn from our experience is that the crucial issue is not really market competition or privatisation, as such, but quality, greater efficiency and good, cleverly designed organisation. These are aspects to which the Commission has given insufficient consideration in its proposal. I want to express my thanks to Mr Jarzembowski who, as rapporteur, has come up with many criticisms of the Commission’s proposal. I should like to make a number of important exceptions, and I shall point out a couple of these. Quite a few speakers have referred to pilotage. I believe that pilotage is quite clearly a service for the benefit of everyone. Pilotage must not therefore be regarded in terms of the same economic criteria as ordinary production, but from a safety perspective. Taking responsibility oneself can have very serious consequences when it comes to loading and unloading. That especially applies in view of the fact that flags of convenience are a common phenomenon. I am in favour of transparency and public scrutiny where ports are concerned. I am in favour of self-financed ports. I want to see quality and efficiency brought about through ports’ preparing their own development programmes instead of being subjected to extensive forms of control from Brussels. Such programmes must be carried out in cooperation with staff and clients at the ports.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my task is a relatively simple one. The committee adopted both of Mrs Read’s reports by a large majority, without us having to make major changes to them. This means, Mrs Read, that I can keep my comments relatively brief. Our group unreservedly endorses the Commission’s intention, which the committee has also approved, namely to increase the upper limit for aid granted for trans-European electronic networks from 10% to 30%. Although the overall framework is no bigger – which means that fewer projects can be supported – we were persuaded that the 10% limit was too low, so we support this motion, and you can rely on our unconditional support for the first report. In the second report, your concern is to introduce greater flexibility into pan-European eGovernment services, which are capable of being used in every conceivable way. In it, you express your desire to do away with the Commission’s distinction between ‘projects of common interest’ and ‘horizontal measures’, thus allocating resources, totalling EUR 59.1 million for 2005 and 2006, and EUR 89.6 million for the period from 2007 to 2009, in a more flexible way. We support you in this concern, too, and I believe that both your reports, in which you describe the problems in great detail, will enjoy the support of a broad majority in this House. I would now like to conclude with an additional observation on the trans-European networks as a whole, a topic that has been on our agenda for many months, indeed for years. Up to now, the problem has been that these great projects – whether in transport, telecommunications, in the energy infrastructure, in research and technology – have suffered from insufficient financial resources. The consequence has been that the implementation of the Essen resolutions, which first sought to promote the trans-European networks, has been very slow, very sparing and very incomplete. A group of experts under Mr Karel van Miert conducted a mid-year study of the transport infrastructure. The Commission’s new initiative for growth, the sixty-two projects in which are expected to be signed off by the Summit, deals precisely with this area. Even though we are, today, discussing only funding and total budget, I can tell the Commissioner that the approach of promoting and extending trans-European networks is the right one if we want, not only to free up markets, but also to make Europe fit for the future and thereby move a bit closer to achieving the goal we set ourselves at Lisbon. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the rules governing the voluntary labelling system provided for in the 1999 EU regulation expire on 31 August. The Council regulation before us must be adopted to avoid a legal vacuum arising. The agreement reached by the EU Agriculture Ministers on a Europe-wide beef labelling system was not such a major achievement. The work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development was in fact much more demanding than the result before us. The content of all the measures approved is to be modified so that proof of meat’s origin is valid as a guarantee in order to apply environmental control procedures and if necessary impose sanctions. The Community labelling system quite rightly aims to enhance transparency of production and marketing conditions for beef, and in particular to improve certainty as to its origin. Higher product costs cannot be ruled out, as the cost of applying the system will be passed on to the consumer. The incalculable risk as regards food quality will not be dramatically reduced in this way, as the information provided is not primarily intended for the consumer. The last 16 years, since the first outbreak of mad cow disease, have demonstrated the importance of production for consumer confidence. The most effective measure is to strengthen production in the region of origin, which is more justifiable both environmentally and economically speaking.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is not in a spirit of sterile recrimination but because of our concern and alarm about the way the situation is now developing that we feel compelled to recall and stress the direct and indirect responsibility of the United States of America for the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, going on unabated at this very moment in East Timor. We share some of the relief felt by many when the Clinton Administration, in an apparent turnaround, finally criticized the Jakarta Government and let the United Nations take control of the crisis. Anybody in this House who is not familiar with Washington’s role in the tragedies in Indonesia and Timor, from 1966 to the latest genocide unleashed by the military on 30 August, should read the analysis published today by the Washington Post and the Herald Tribune under the banner headline ‘Pentagon defends Indonesian military contacts as useful’. We are reminded of the close personal friendship between the Chairman of the United States Chief of Staff, General Henry Shelton, and the butcher from Jakarta, General Wiranto. The top military man in the United States aiding and abetting the violence in East Timor and last Monday ordering his Indonesian pal to accept an international peace force. Mrs Halonen stated this morning that the terror unleashed on 30 August took the Council by surprise. It should not have. May we suggest that in order to avoid future surprises, the Council and Parliament monitor very closely the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations, the humanitarian aid plan by Europe, the integrity of any present or future programme designed to put an end to the suffering of the Timorese to guarantee their full independence and sovereignty free of any threat, interference or pressure by the Indonesian military and their American mentors.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I was unable to make the speech I had prepared during the sitting itself for lack of time. I am therefore summing up the key points during the explanations of vote. I share the rapporteur’s concerns that this proposal does not provide Europe’s citizens with an appropriate level of protection as regards transferring and processing personal data relating to them, especially if we take into account the protection they are guaranteed under the European directive on data protection. However, we all know that at present data is already being circulated in practice, but in an unregulated way. So while the safe harbour principle may not be an ideal solution to this problem, it will at least impose a certain number of rules and will be a way of preventing abuse. Work has progressed on attempting to reconcile two differing approaches, namely our own legislation-based system, in which compliance with legal restrictions on obtaining and using personal data is ensured by the public authorities, and the Americans’ preference for self-regulation. The agreement reached represents a limited step forward as far as the guarantees involved are concerned, but it is positive in terms of what it offers for the future by way of security. We accordingly support the position adopted in the Paciotti report with the amendments tabled by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi.

Political group: PPE-DE