GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I wonder if you are able to confirm, or your services are able to confirm, that this building, particularly the Tower Building, satisfies all aspects of health and safety legislation and whether it has a valid fire certificate. These are important issues and if it does not, then I think serious questions must be raised. I would therefore ask you either to confirm this categorically or, if not, to confirm that measures are taken to investigate the situation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the shadow rapporteurs and I should like to propose that Amendment No 15 be taken as an addition. Amendment No 15 therefore concerns Paragraph 65 b. At the same time, I have a comment regarding the vote on Paragraph 66. We propose a split vote into two parts, and we recommend rejecting the first part of Paragraph 66 and accepting the second part, which begins with ‘also regrets that after the assurances etc.’ The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0079/2003) by Freddy Blak, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the discharge to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the financial year 2001 (C5-0601/2002 – 2002/2186(DEC)); on the discharge to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2001 (C5-0597/2002 – 2002/2187(DEC)); on the discharge to the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2001 (C5-0596/2002 – 2002/2188(DEC)) (In successive votes, Parliament adopted the decisions and resolutions) *** Report (A5-0068/2003) by Brigitte Langenhagen, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on giving discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for the 2001 financial year (C5-0556/2002 – 2002/2185(DEC)) (In successive votes, Parliament adopted the decision and the resolution) President. – That concludes the vote.(1) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - B5-0194/2003

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted for the report on the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union, although a majority would have been obtained in this vote even without my contribution. I voted for the motion because I hope, expect and pray that, in the next Parliament, elected in 2004, which will include representatives from the Czech Republic, there will also be representatives of the Czech Pensioners’ Party, to swell our numbers and make us more effective in protecting pensioners’ rights. More would be achieved in this area in Parliament if there were more representatives of the pensioners’ parties of Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the Queiró report on Hungary's application for membership of the European Union and share the majority of conclusions that he draws. I note that Hungary is making good progress towards meeting both the Copenhagen criteria and meeting the obligations of the acquis communautaire. If Hungary continues to make progress and the European Union adjusts its institutional structure and policies in order to cope with enlargement I can see no reason why Hungary should not be admitted to the Union. I look forward to early membership for Hungary.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, there are, under the circumstances, a lot of reports on animal feedingstuffs and animal nutrition before Parliament at the present time. Yesterday, we discussed the circulation of compound feedingstuffs; today, at a second reading, we are back with undesirable substances in animal nutrition. Mrs Paulsen has confirmed that, in its common position of 17 September 2001, the Council shared Parliament's view that, in order to ensure a comprehensive level of protection, no mixing or dilution should be permitted and that, in addition, the Member States should be empowered to lay down action thresholds. I think that the practicality of these proposals will be shown when the time comes to implement them, and if there are problems then we must be ready to make more changes. We know that everything that is prescribed must be capable of being monitored, which does not mean that only the possibility of monitoring must exist, but that monitoring is actually carried out. What we are actually hoping for is that we can complete this document today. Our misgivings about the issues raised by Article 13(2) have been put forward, and we continue to hope that there will be a compromise, even if Mrs Paulsen has now cast doubt on it. The groups have come to an agreement among themselves. What is at issue is the re-exportation of products intended for animal nutrition produced outside the Community and not complying with this directive's requirements. It is not enough to simply say, ‘I do not want that, so I shall send it back’. We ask ourselves questions and we face responsibilities. What happens to feedingstuffs like that? Do they get destroyed, are they diluted, or do they reach us or other countries by other routes? ‘You shall not to others do/what they should not do to you’, we say in Germany, so we are actually in favour of requiring the destruction of produce bought as feedingstuff but not permissible as such under this directive, and of it being done on the spot. The objection now raised to that is that it means the European Union being misused as a disposal plant. I think we would have no problems with that if we could resolve the question of how the costs would be met. So it is not enough to simply send the stuff back, and does not do justice to our responsibility as politicians. We continue to hope that the compromise that is taking shape, which we have brought in in Amendment No 4, will be supported by a majority in this House, and that we will be able to persuade the Council as well. It will make it possible to put abuses of the system on the record and to document them. The authorities in the exporting third country must give their express consent to the re-exportation. I would, though, see the next logical step as being for the exporting third country to also produce evidence of what has subsequently been done with the items taken back.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, acting President of the Council, I welcome the addition to the agenda of the Stockholm Summit in which sustainable development and environmentally-driven growth are to be incorporated into the Lisbon strategy. I consider that this addition is only the decent minimum. What in fact does it mean politically? Might it possibly be nothing but words? Both the Council’s decision and the Commission’s basis for discussion for sustainable development, which were presented after the Stockholm Summit, place far too great an emphasis on economic policy and on competition-driven growth. Ecofin’s structural indicators were adopted in full but not a single environmental indicator was included, not even the Commission’s proposal for indicators on energy efficiency nor any indicators on emissions of greenhouse gases. In this sense the Stockholm Summit was a disappointment. The US now threatening to withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement is scandalous and the EU’s leaders must consider serious measures to show... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Following on from the points of order made earlier today, I am grateful the President is going to raise the issue yet again with the Greek authorities. I am speaking particularly about my constituent Wayne Groves from Tamworth. He did not even possess a camera so I still do not know why he is being held in detention. He is sleeping on a floor with a thin mattress, as I understand are the other prisoners. He has been there for three weeks. Why, when the magistrate said yesterday that there was no real evidence against them, are they still being held? I believe along with everybody else that this is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. If applicant countries have to say that will adhere to it before membership, surely current members should adhere to it now.

Political group: ELDR
Research is a crucial factor if Europe is to return on a long-term basis to the path of growth. I say ‘on a long-term basis’ because it is not a question simply of boosting economic activity in the short term but of guaranteeing in the long term, and in accordance with the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, the existence of an innovative and vital European industry. That is why I voted in favour of Mr Linkhor’s report, and I hope that this will serve to strengthen investment devoted to research, both in the budgets of the Member States and in that of the EU. It is necessary, however, to remain vigilant and avoid a situation in which, under the pretext of support for innovation, measures are taken that tend to satisfy certain industrial lobbies, often alien to the EU, to the detriment of the very interests of our researchers and entrepreneurs. I therefore voted against paragraph 28, the ambiguous wording of which might cause it to be thought that, at the expense of innovative SMEs in the sector and to the benefit of the American multinationals wishing to perpetuate their dominant position, Parliament was going back on the position it had adopted in the framework of studying the draft Directive on the patentability of software. - Report: Clegg (A5-0376/2003)

Political group: PSE
For centuries, it has been a matter of course that people should not only eat animals, but also use them in all other areas where they expect to benefit. This has resulted in such outrages as fighting with dogs, cocks and bulls, the use of sleigh dogs, the large-scale breeding of animals for their furs, hunting and animal testing. Meanwhile, a younger generation of – in many cases – better-educated people is giving increasing attention to the welfare of pets, farm animals and animals in their natural habitats, and animal testing is also becoming less of an obvious choice. Tests are carried out on animals for military purposes and in the production of cosmetics and medicines. According to the rapporteur, seven Member States, including the Netherlands, fail to implement the existing directive on the protection of animals for experiments and other scientific purposes. She is therefore right to call for a proposal to step up this directive before the end of 2003, aimed at better control, a compulsory ethical evaluation procedure, a ban on experiments on primates caught in the wild and also a ban on animal abuse for the development of chemical weapons and cosmetics. Unfortunately, this is not yet legislation in the true sense of the word, but an attempt to invite the Commission to take an initiative. Unfortunately, unlike other parliaments, this Parliament cannot reach a decision without cooperation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted for the Markov Report because I believe that the report is right to commend the role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in aiding SMEs in the former Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. This is often unreported but critical work to build up the economic capacity of countries which have been badly underdeveloped in this sector. I particularly commend the report's call for assistance to NGOs involved in the strengthening of democracy in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the matter of transport in Europe, which we are debating due to the examination of a White Paper with the evocative title ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ and the report by Mr Collado on this White Paper, is, to me, a perfect example of the gap, not to say the canyon, that exists in Europe in this field, as in many others, between needs and reality, between the stated objectives and the means implemented to achieve them. All because a market logic, founded in 1992 in a White Paper behind directives on competitiveness and liberalisation, has led to our neglecting safety, the environment, social aspects and land use planning. The senseless belief that liberalisation is effective, not to say perfect, has created short-sightedness with regard to the future, devalued public action and public services, condemned those who believe in the need for long-term public investment and divided funding, excluding general interest and the positive or negative effects of decisions taken in the short term. The rapporteur himself criticised this very firmly and I would thank him for that. I also support him, of course, when he says that transport is a strategic sector for land use planning and for economic and social cohesion, and when he speaks of the serious consequences for the environment. He tells us that sustainable development must comprise the basis for a European transport policy, and I agree. He calls for global transport management, and I agree. I also agree, of course, with his concern for safety and social requirements. I therefore support many of his requests, but I am very afraid that at the time of voting, the necessary electric shock will not be sufficient to cause deep-seated policy changes in this area. Our rapporteur speaks of the need for greater balance between modes of transport, which is good, but this is not sufficient, far from it. As I requested during the debate on the sixth DP, we need further research in the field. In particular, we should quickly redirect public investment by means of public borrowing, significant public borrowing. The year 2010 is in seven years and that is very close. If Europe does not want to limit itself to a list of good intentions, it must now, as of 2003, redirect all its investments and all its choices in this area by providing itself with new legislative instruments and financial resources equal to what is at stake.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, your few months in the Presidency have been long enough to make a caricature of what was agreed under previous presidencies on immigration and asylum, education and women’s employment and sustainable development. The issue of enlargement, which was confirmed in Laeken, you have left in a worse state. You have not pushed forward with the fair reforms of the CAP, the common fisheries policy and the Structural Funds, which are so important for the Union, for the Spanish State and for Galicia. You have not made progress on the Union’s proposals on the appalling situation in Israel and Palestine and you have abandoned Latin America, which is so dear to us. You have interfered, with insolent arrogance, in the work of the Convention, going so far as to style yourself virtual president of the Union. Everything under your presidency has been permeated by paranoia about security. You have been obsessed with the desire to reduce your position to that of head of Europe’s police and all you have to show for your efforts is the sad link you have made between immigration and crime.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would first like to thank Commissioner Busquin for the way these proposals were prepared, for listening to the views of others and for his excellent collaboration. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Gérard Caudron. He listened attentively to all the political groups and to the shadow rapporteurs, and others. We have worked very well together. I believe that he did everything he could have done. Although there have been differences of opinion on some conclusions, the work was completed to a high standard. My thanks also go to my fellow shadow rapporteurs. In my opinion, this report on the Sixth Framework Programme on European Research is the big report of the moment, despite its faults. It has European added value, it is innovative as the Commissioner wished, it has networks of excellence and integrated projects. We have a lot to do. We have also made significant progress on matters concerning young people, grants and women and preventing brain drains. We cannot ignore all the innovative proposals in the Sixth Framework programme. There are three issues of great concern to the . Firstly, the ethical questions. We do not want the European Union to fund the modification of the human genetic inheritance and the creation of human embryos for therapeutic reasons. We also want to see a ban on financing research using supernumerary human embryos and the stem cells of supernumerary embryos. From what I have heard, I think all the political groups will reach a compromise on these points. Secondly, we would like to see an assessment of the effects of new technologies, like electromagnetic radiation for example, on populations, on health and so on. Thirdly, we would like to achieve a fairer balance between research on renewable energies and research on nuclear energy. I would like to reiterate the sentiments of Eryl MacNally. We do not want to see an increase in the nuclear energy or the ITER project budgets. That is very long term. We would however like research credits for renewable energy to be more on a par with those for nuclear energy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, before I left for Strasbourg, I met my great friend and colleague, Mr Giuseppe Italia – that really is his name, the same as my country, Italy – and Giuseppe Italia, who lives in Cremona, said to me: ‘I know that you are going to vote on this report. That is good, I am in favour of that. I am a chain-smoker and I am prepared to go out of my house to have a cigarette if there is someone indoors who does not like smoke. However, I am sixty-two years old: I don’t drink, I don’t have sex any more because ...’ – he did not expand on this point – ‘but, at least, leave me the pleasure of smoking cigarettes for I do not disturb anyone and I have no other pleasure left in life.’ Therefore, I voted for the motion: I am in favour of smoking in appropriate places and I am against increasing taxation on cigarettes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I join with previous speakers in demanding the immediate and unconditional abolition of the death penalty in the United States, and everywhere else in the world. The death penalty is a political arm used by the American Government apparatus to settle accounts with militants like Mumia Abu Jamal. Like the whole prison system, it is also an instrument of social discrimination because Afro-Americans, ethnic minorities, and more generally the poor, are far more at risk than others of being condemned to death. It is also a penalty whose irreversible character makes any reparation impossible if a mistake is made – and mistakes are often made. A government which makes legal assassination one of the pillars of its justice system is infinitely more criminal than those it claims it is protecting society from. The death penalty expresses all the barbarity of a society organised in a way that also condemns so many children and adolescents, even in the richest country in the world, to die from drug use or insecurity, actually from material and moral poverty, simply because they had the misfortune to be born in a poor area. On a planetary scale, that barbarity condemns millions of human beings to die of hunger or disease when they could easily be cured – but they are not cured because they do not get the medicine they need. In rising up against the death penalty we also rise up against all that barbarity, against the barbarity linked to permanently organising society so that all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority and the great mass of humanity is condemned to poverty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I will start by declaring an interest, because I have been a Class 1 football referee for 18 years now and I am attached to the English FA, and also by congratulating both France for winning the Euro 2000 championship in such a fantastic way, and alas, begrudgingly Germany for winning the World Cup bid for 2006. I also want to make sure that we actually condemn hooligans in a very strong way in this House; all hooligans whatever country they come from and whatever their background. I note what Mr Van Hecke said about the repatriation of a number of English football fans on C130 planes. It was a great shame in fact that the Belgian police overreacted in such a way by clearing bars of decent ordinary football-loving supporters, taking them with the dross that are the football hooligans. The question is: what message was sent out by the football authorities going back a number of months before the Euro 2000 championship? We had a problem with two Leeds fans being murdered in a UEFA Cup game in Istanbul against Galatasaray, yet no action was taken against Galatasaray – they were not thrown out of the UEFA Cup. In Denmark when Galatasaray played Arsenal, a number of Arsenal fans were arrested yet not charged with hooliganism. Then we have the inaction by the British government, which chose not to impose any extra sanctions on stopping people from travelling, even though they knew they might cause trouble. So all these factors actually led to a number of people thinking: 'Well this Euro 2000 championship is a soft touch. We should be allowed to go there, and we are going to go and have a good fight', instead of watching the wonderful festival of football that it should have been. This Parliament and others on the outside should step back, because we have a breathing space now where we can take a reasoned view of what actions we should realistically take against football hooligans, and compare that with the rights of people to freely move about our continent.

Political group: PPE-DE