GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President—in-Office of the Council, you have not really been very explicit, because all you are telling me is that proposals will be presented during the second half of 2003, but without being specific about them. I thank you very much for your reply anyway and I would like to know whether or not you believe that women’s issues should be progressively introduced into political dialogue.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are the alpha and omega of any political system. We take them for granted, but it appears that in our ultra-civilised Europe they are not always observed. Mr Haarder has described the situation within the 15 Member States, and the implication is that there is certainly much work still to be done. For example, it is an inadmissible, almost bewildering fact that, even today, some countries are denounced by Amnesty International for failure to respect the most basic human rights. It is absurd that some states, including, sadly, my native country, are being condemned by the European Court of Human Rights over the exaggerated length of their legal proceedings. The fact that the institution of exile is still in force in some Member States is incompatible with all the principles of human rights. If the European Union wants to enlarge and become an authoritative reference system for the international community, we do indeed need a strong, coherent reaction from the European institutions, but there is also the need for each of us to transcend his own national political interests and focus on the good of the Union as a whole by voting responsibly, in both political and, more importantly, humane terms on these issues. We are all quite aware that this report will not be binding upon our governments: until the Charter of Fundamental Rights is completed and inserted into the Treaties we can do no more than invite the Member States to take action. However, where there is political responsibility this should not be a problem. At a time when the Union is attempting to create an autonomous military body to enable it to intervene wherever the rule of law is under threat, at a time when the Copenhagen criteria have become an integral part of the acquis communautaire to be assimilated by the candidate countries, it is unacceptable for there to be such discrepancies in the area of human rights within the 15 States. We must overcome this and incite our governments to be European through and through. I am not the first person to say this: the European Union is not, cannot and must not be a purely economic union. The European Union is something much greater than that; it has a common origin and a dream which we must fight to realise, and civil rights are an integral part of that fight.

Political group: PPE-DE
Is the Commission in a position to give us reassurances in relation to the Armagh case straddling the border between the north of Ireland and the Republic, where we have word today of a suspect case again; sheep imported from Carlisle Mart, some of which have apparently travelled onward down south to the Republic. In fact, as I am talking to you, I have just heard of gossip – and let’s hope that is all it is – of sheep in Wexford, my own constituency, having been identified and being incinerated as we talk. Again, that remains to be confirmed but apparently there is a spread of sheep from Carlisle to a mart in Armagh, which straddles the border of the Leinster Euro constituency I represent and the exclusion zone. Could the Commissioner give us any update on that? Hopefully, again it is only a suspect case and will remain so. Is the Commissioner satisfied that the vigilance and disinfection facilities at all ports and airports in the EU, but particularly in Ireland and Great Britain, are as they should be, and has he a role in that area?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, although I appear on the list as an author, my group is not a signatory to this joint resolution, although we are likely to support it. As previous speakers have said, probably none of us in this Chamber would deny the devastating effects of religious extremism. In the case of Gujarat, as Mr Tannock mentioned, it is actually Hindu extremism. It was the action of those so-called 'pilgrims' which resulted in an appalling massacre of 58 people. We have seen the fallout from that in what is euphemistically called 'inter-communal violence'. The resolution states that whereas numerous independent inquiries by human rights organisations confirm that state officials and the police of Gujarat were involved in the clashes, this involvement runs deep. It is not just a question of a casual street brawl but orchestrated violence and intimidation over a sustained period. The Human Rights Watch report states that the Gujarat Government chose to characterise the violence as a spontaneous reaction to the incidents at Godhra. Human Rights Watch findings and those of numerous Indian human rights and civil liberties organisations and most of the Indian press indicate that the attacks on Muslims throughout the state were planned well in advance of the Godhra incident and organised with extensive police participation and in close cooperation with officials of the BJP State Government. On 3 April India's national Human Rights Commission released the preliminary findings of its report on the violence, a strong indictment of the failure of the Gujarat Government to contain the violence. The very authorities to whom people should have been able to look for protection were, in many cases, complicit in devastating attacks and increasing the level and ferocity of violence which makes every citizen feel threatened, whatever their religion or background. There are now about 100 refugee camps organised by NGOs in the area. A mere handful see support from the government of Gujarat State. That authority has a responsibility for the wellbeing and care of these people now and in future. The Indian Government has an overall responsibility to see that justice is done and that the instigators, organisers and perpetrators of this violence are brought to justice. They will also need to ensure that the police force in Gujarat is made to recognise that it owes a duty to all people who may be under threat or attack, not just their own. Clear signals are needed from the government – indeed we have had some – that religious intolerance and incitement to religious hatred have no place in secular, democratic India. My group welcomes the ruling of the Indian Supreme Court in March this year banning any religious ceremonies at Ayodhya until the definite legal settlement of the case which we hope will be in the interests of a peaceful, long-term solution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish firstly to say that I really appreciate Mrs Ferreira’s work. I also support her proposals, for example when it comes to our not being able to accept the Commission’s deciding alone which substances constitute sweeteners. Nor can it be reasonable that a substance considered dangerous and not to be approved should be sold until stocks are exhausted. Health must come first in this case. The Group of the think that Amendment No 2 (Article 1a (new)) is far too general and that it focuses too much on the new sweeteners. In our Amendment No 4, we want the Commission to present a report regarding a re-evaluation of the authorisation granted in respect of the sweetener aspartame. There is comprehensive criticism from independent experts who question the fact that the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) has given the green light to aspartame. According to the criticism, the Scientific Committee has ignored critical and independent investigations and perhaps let itself be influenced by the food industry or the aspartame manufacturers. We cannot disregard the fact that there is information that should prompt a reaction on our part if we want the precautionary principle to apply and protect people’s health. There is a recently written report from Spain showing that aspartame formaldehyde accumulates in cells, something that may destroy DNA and, for example, cause liver or brain damage, especially in the case of people vulnerable to such damage. To use Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s words: the political winds are blowing from both right and in this House this evening. That cannot, however, prevent us, in the Group, from requesting that the arguments be examined once more and the precautionary principle applied when the researchers disagree and come up with different positions. I therefore appeal to my fellow MEPs in actual fact to vote in favour of Amendment No 4 tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I will start by focusing primarily on the Seppänen report. This is a comprehensive report which addresses all the problems of the final stage of the ECSC’s life, but it also takes into account the problems of the future, if it is true – which it is – that, although the ECSC is dying, the coal and steel industry must continue to develop in Europe. The sum set aside for the ten remaining months of the ECSC budget is sufficient, and the increased appropriations for research are in line with the forecasts for after the Treaty’s expiry. Parliament wants to play a leading part in our endeavours to give a reassuring response to the 357 000 workers who are employed in the sector and to provide a secure future in terms of the growth and restructuring of the sector. I would now like to focus, in the last part of my speech, on the Union’s general budget. As the members of my group have already said, starting with the coordinator, Mr Ralf Walter, our opinion of the work carried out by Mr Costa Neves and Mrs Buitenweg is positive. There are many elements which deserve a mention here: the undertaking to improve the quality and speed of expenditure, and here I refer to the Structural Funds, which require an extraordinary measure from the European institutions to motivate, coordinate and carry out prospective and retrospective assessments so that European federalism does not fail this major test; the attention given to the issue of border regions, mentioned by Commissioner Schreyer – I, too, agree with Mr Böge when he says that it is right to clarify the concept of a border region – not least in relation to the enlargement process: regions which must not be the only ones to benefit, Commissioner, and I would stress this point, for the pilot project approved last year does not and must not, as it progresses, just concern the border regions. We have got off to a good start: the negotiations will take place and I feel that, ultimately, we will achieve a sound budget, but when I think of this great asset which is Europe, an asset which is ours and ours alone, a supranational political entity which others look to for guidance, as they will have to in the face of fresh challenges, I wonder whether we really ought not to review the financial mechanisms of the European budget if we want to consolidate a great supranational institution which is the envy of all and which needs more resources and a role that is more clearly defined.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I do not agree with this chorus of satisfaction expressed by my colleagues, who are delighted about the relaxing of a directive that respects the principle of precaution and which takes measures to protect consumers’ health. This infectious salmon disease is caused by an orthomixomicrovirus which breaks down the blood of salmon, causing death. It spreads very easily through mucus in saline water, etc. Under the 1993 directive, not only the diseased fish can be culled but also the farmed fish where individuals are affected, exactly like the case when one cow is sick in a herd and the whole herd is culled according to the principle of precaution. What we currently propose is to relax this directive, so that we do not cull all the fish, but only the fish that are found to be diseased. For the others, well, we would have time to see what would happen, according to local circumstances. I think it is a very serious matter that we act in this way. I would particularly draw my colleagues’ attention to this fact as we cannot make do with saying that a temperature of 27° has every advantage for the human race and that, consequently, there is no risk to men. What about women? Nobody has undertaken any studies on human tissue in that regard. There is also a risk to the environment, because we know that there is an incubation period in salmon and that, consequently, if they are eaten, they can be carriers of this virus and present a risk. There is another risk to the environment as well, because this disease is transmitted to wild fish, as we have seen. For this reason, together with my colleague, Patricia McKenna, we have tabled amendments against the proposals made by the Commission.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, unemployment is one of our really big problems in Europe. Even if it is macroeconomic policy which is the most important factor, an active policy concerning the labour market is also very necessary. The labour market can no more chart its own course than any other complex systems can, but must instead be regulated and given direction. It is just a question of how this is to be done. In fact, labour markets in Europe all look very different from each other, and the conditions which need to be present before they can be directed and regulated vary from one market to the next. In certain countries, levels of trade union membership are high. There, the social partners in the labour market can themselves play the main role. In other countries, it is the State and the employment agencies which play the main role. Where future labour markets too are concerned, we must perhaps consider strengthening the rights of individual employees. When the Commission and the Council now set about devising employment plans and guidelines, these national differences must be taken account of. You can have common objectives, but the way of achieving these has to vary depending upon national and regional circumstances. What is most important is that the actors at national, regional and local levels want to be involved in a constructive way. There should not be any commands coming from Brussels. Instead, we must listen to the actors in the market and develop a dialogue. I therefore think it is a good thing that the Commission has now seriously begun to emphasise the importance of local job creation. I was very pleased to see that one of the main topics in the so-called employment week conference which is now going on in parallel with our own discussions is precisely the importance of local initiatives. This, then, is one of the main themes at this conference. Whether or not the Luxembourg process functions effectively will depend in fact upon cooperation between local, regional, national and European actors. Where this is concerned, I think that the planning and the tools need to be improved. The Menrad report is a good step in that direction, even though I think that it largely accepts the existing form of planning. In the future, we in Parliament must be bolder with our proposals and initiatives. Personally, I think that the convergence philosophy ought to be replaced by an interest in variation, diversity, experiment and the mobilisation of local resources. Workers should not be regarded as an abstract labour force but as active participants who are to be supported and strengthened by the planning process. That is, in fact, much more important than individual detailed formulations in the written guidelines.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, although we are unable to change the United Nations’ vocabulary, I believe that we are able to use self-discipline. Now, at Nice, you proclaimed a charter on our behalf, which gave rise to considerable discussions as to whether the expression ‘human rights’ should be replaced by ‘individual rights’. I believe that this is the terminology that we should use in our internal work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Community of Democracies is a forum which was created in 2000 and, I am pleased to say, relaunched at the last Transnational Radical Party congress. It is a project in which the Group of the is greatly interested too, and we therefore want to emphasise the need for the Commission and the other Union organs to play an active role in the next conference, which, as you are aware, is due to take place in Seoul between 9 and 12 November 2002. In a world in which the threat of terrorism is increasingly accompanied by the danger that combating terrorism will lead to new cases of imperial dominance, it would appear essential that the alliance which the USA is attempting to build to fight what has been described as the axis of evil be opposed, although not necessarily antagonistically, by the Community of Democracies, an international body promoting peace and respect for freedoms which condemns all authoritarian tendencies on any side. The Community of Democracies is not another UN, for the UN has a different sphere of operation and different tasks. Nor is it an imitation of what is known as the coalition against terrorism, which, I am sad to say, includes some States which are not democratic. We call for the European Union to be more explicitly involved and for this Community, which seeks to promote democracy and freedoms, to become not just a forum for debate but a genuine international institution based on a binding agreement laying down, inter alia, clear criteria for accession. These criteria must include the respect for human rights by the ‘good’ States involved in combating terrorism too and the practical recognition of fundamental freedoms, starting with the equality of citizens before the law and the freedom of the press, which are currently being violated extensively even in the different Member States of the Union – a prime example being Berlusconi’s Italy – and they must, in any case, be in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights which the European Union approved at the Nice European Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, whilst I would like to congratulate the enlarged Commission, I want again to ask the same fundamental question others here have already referred to. We female citizens of the European Union are worried about the future of gender equality. We know that 14% of the Members from the new Member States here now are women. We do not know how the forthcoming Parliament or the next Commission will be made up, but I imagine I would not be very wrong in predicting that the current female representation of 31% will see a downward turn. How will the Commission ensure that equality remains one of our basic values in the Union? Should there perhaps be a Commissioner for equality during this time of transition and change? As I have been so brief, may I greet and thank the interpreters, whom perhaps we are meeting today for the last time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the purpose of the proposed arrangements is to make it easier to hand over public services of general interest to private interests. In a period of economic crisis, the only thing that is certain is that big business will want to get its hands on the public wealth in order to maximise its profits. Undertakings of general interest, apart from their important role in the development of the national economy, also play a strategically important role with regard to the security and independence of each country, especially in times of economic and other crises. Privatising these undertakings and liberalising their markets will ultimately limit this development and will certainly enrich their shareholders instead of strengthening the national economy. The statement that liberalisation is a factor of technological progress and economic efficiency is not true because, from experience with its practical application to date, it probably has the opposite effect. Privatisation results in the destruction of productive forces, problematic performance, a fall in the quality of the services provided, terrible social inequalities, higher prices and fewer jobs. Privatisation has an adverse impact on workers, not just as a result of the increase in the prices of the services provided but also, more importantly, as a result of the waves of redundancies and the resultant replacement of the work regime with flexible forms of work. Any restrictions placed on the action of big business in the services of general interest sector and any good intentions to guarantee certain principles which will govern operations and the services provided, even if applied initially, will subsequently degenerate, and the only victims will be the citizens. We are opposed to the selling off of public wealth for the benefit of big business. We support the public character of undertakings of general interest, which need to be upgraded, providing good, cheap services to the workers, and to act as a lever in a publicly-owned economy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would just like to say that the same error which Mr van Velzen mentioned has also been committed in the Greek translation. The words “to apply” have been omitted, which are vitally important. I would like to point out to my Greek colleagues and to you all that there has been an error in translation. - Relating to paragraph 7

Political group: PSE
I fully appreciate that the Irish Government and the Irish Prime Minister would like this to happen, but the Irish Government cannot decide how the Irish people will vote. The issue must therefore be regarded as remaining open until the referendum has been held. Consequently, another ‘No’ vote from the Irish people cannot be ruled out. My question relates to a situation that is wholly feasible and quite practical. This is not an abstract question, but a practical, political one. Given such a situation, could we not solve the problems in a very simple, practical way, by allowing Ireland to join the institutions in the same way as Finland, Sweden and Austria did, i.e. by negotiation? That way, there would be no problem with the Treaty of Nice. Would not that be a practical, pragmatic solution that might also appeal to Mr Haarder?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you have just announced, the Conference of Presidents has not complied with the request that we made of it. I would like to use this opportunity to again briefly explain to the plenary why it is, in our opinion, that we should not have a debate without Parliament’s opinion being expressed. Now that the hostilities are over, it is clear how things stand in Iraq, and this makes it possible for this House not only to have a debate on the situation there, but also to frame a resolution stating the position this House takes in the light of what is actually happening in Iraq. The Conference of Presidents gave me the impression that there is some degree of fear, particularly among the members of the Group of the European People’s Party , that Parliament could again end up in the position it was in last time and be unable to adopt a resolution. I do not want to enlarge on the reasons for this, as I would then have to address a certain person to my right, but perhaps, given a little goodwill on the part of all the groups involved, we now have the chance to put together a resolution that would indeed express not only the consensus in this House, but also the stance of the European Union, or could define Parliament’s demand that the European Union’s position be expressed through a Common Foreign and Security Policy, which is again possible and necessary. Our group therefore asks that the debate be accompanied by the text of a resolution.

Political group: PSE