GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Minister, Commissioner, everything you have just said has been very well expressed, even if a few male colleagues, if there are still any in the Chamber, perhaps gnashed their teeth. I know that there are also some women who do not wish to hear of quotas or even of positive action, because they believe that this positive discrimination humiliates them and marks them forever in their careers. But the statistics prove it: the positive action, even the quotas, – if they are not applied blindly, without distinction – have increased the number of women in the decision-making process. That is why we are justified in stating that the use of quotas, as a transitional measure, contributes to balancing out the participation of men and women, particularly in political life. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the Commissioner of some requests and initiatives of this Parliament which her predecessor did not follow up and which are closer to our hearts than the quotas. First of all it concerns our report, which was adopted last year on the occasion of International Women’s Day in Strasbourg, which requests the Commission to submit to us a new proposal to amend the 1976 directive on the implementation of the principle of the equal treatment of men and women. According to the Treaty of Amsterdam, there was no longer any reason to maintain the positive action as a tolerated departure from the principle of equal treatment which only recognises an individual right, and not a right that belongs to the society that wishes to achieve this equality democratically. Things being what they are, nobody should dare any longer to dispute that the right of equality of men and women is a fundamental right of a democratic society, requiring equal treatment and equal opportunity be achieved by a package of active measures, including positive action. Therefore, Commissioner, you can go ahead. You do not need to wait for a new amendment to the Treaty. May I just remind you once again of our request for an amendment to the 1976 directive which has been watered down and misapplied with regard to the equal treatment of self-employed people, including assistant spouses. No action has been taken on our report which unanimously proposed a European framework status for assistant spouses. Here again, Commissioner, the ball is in your court. Do not take too long to send it back.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to many observers, what happened outside the Göteborg Summit appeared to be of greater importance than what took place inside. I am referring, of course, to the violence displayed by the demonstrators and to relations with the United States. With regard to the latter, although it is true that points of disagreement still remain, on capital punishment, for example, on the Kyoto protocol and on the anti-missile shield, considerable progress has clearly been made, Mr President, on the joint declaration on the Middle East and on the joint approach to the Balkans. On the issue of the violence, I think that we must make a clear distinction between displays of violent action – and violence must be eradicated because in a democracy ideas cannot be advocated by force – and the message that was conveyed in the course of the protests. In the interest of everyone, Mr President, globalisation must be a ship that has more crew members and fewer shipwrecks. With regard to internal issues, we must make a clear distinction between promises and the reality of the situation. I think that the repeated wish to maintain the timetable for negotiations on enlargement is a factor, but I also feel, Mr President, that the problem of not knowing how this accession process is to be financed or which of the candidate countries will be in the first wave of accessions is significant. It is crucial that we bear in mind that our project for integrating Europe does not only gain legitimacy once every five years when elections to the European Parliament are held. Our project must be given legitimacy each and every day. To this effect, it is not enough for there to be greater and closer police coordination, or for the Commission to set a course for our integration project. What is crucial is that we reach agreement on a common vision of the Europe that we want. No such agreement exists today and yet it is essential if we are to ensure that this project is more what it has been until now: it must be much more the fruit of the dreams and the enthusiasm of our citizens than of the will of our leaders.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on closing this debate, this important debate, with an important and excellent report, what could be better than to talk of justice. Until now, justice has been rather absent from the general debate. I believe that all political communities are judged by the justice they provide. The reality is that our justice system is not sufficient for the competences which have been transferred to the European institutions, the Community competences, especially the competences which have to be reviewed from a legal point of view. Therefore I believe – and this should include the strict current mandate for the Conference with regard to the revision of the institutions in accordance with the Treaty of Amsterdam – that we have to deal with the necessary and thorough reform of our Court of Justice and our Court of First Instance and the reform of the appointment of judges – in which the Parliament should have a significant involvement – as well as the reform of the distribution of competences between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, so that citizens may have an accurate and clear idea of what this European justice, which is their direct form of justice, really is, and the reform, finally – and this is another chapter – of the actionability of the acts. I will end by saying, Mr President, that all of this will become all the more necessary in view of the other great mandate, the launch of which will be the finishing touch of the Finnish Presidency – the excellent Finnish Presidency, whose many successes it is a great honour to recognise in this Chamber and which has been a turning point in the behaviour of the Council. There is a “before and after” of the Finnish Presidency with regard to the daily treatment of this Parliament. That other challenge is to launch the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is also a problem here between the Court of Luxembourg and the Court of Strasbourg. Mr President, as I said at the beginning, a political community is judged by the justice it provides. Let us be aware of this and let us deal with this reform.

Political group: PPE-DE
We have voted against the Korakas report, on aid for cotton production. The report calls for an increase in quotas and fixed prices on cotton and also seeks to regulate the role of cotton producers' associations. We have also rejected the Izquierdo Rojo report, calling for increased aid for the production of nuts and locust beans. Both reports call for the protectionist measures, such as preservation of the system for community preference. It is not reasonable that half of the Union's budget is devoted to subsidising production and exports of agricultural products. We believe that EU funds should instead be spent on purposes where cross-border cooperation is needed. Environmental protection, aid for reconstruction and development assistance are fields where increased funding is essential, not least in light of the upcoming enlargement of the Union. The common agricultural policy is not only very costly for the European citizens, but also contributes to higher consumer prices and lower quality. Consumers express concern about European food production and have rightly begun to question the present the agricultural policies. Export subsidies, leading to the dumping of EU food surpluses on the world market, is the reason behind the serious difficulties for food production in many developing countries. The CAP was established in order to secure the provision of food after the second world war, not to subsidise unprofitable cultivation of crops used for textile production. The common agricultural policy of today has lost its political legitimacy and must be completely reformed. All aid to exports and production should be abolished. Agriculture needs to adapt to market rules in order to be exposed to competition. This will increase efficiency and quality, to the benefit of both production and consumers.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank all those who have worked so hard to try to reach a good compromise. The opinions within this House may differ, but no one should doubt the sincerity of all present in wishing to offer the best help to women in the poorest countries. As has been made very clear by the contributions tonight, there is just one main problem: some definitions within this regulation are not clear enough. It is in everyone's interest to clarify the meaning of the wording of this very important and much needed regulation for the care of women, for mothers and their children. In order to do this to the best of our ability, we should support, in particular, Amendment 53. There is no conflict presented by the wording of this amendment. It is in keeping with the compromise reached and the expressed opinion of the Commission and Council. The European Parliament has very often decided in favour of this very same wording. Without any doubt, it protects the Irish Constitutional position and supports the Irish Government, as well as reassuring the political representatives of accession countries and members of least-developed nations who have contacted various members of the European institutions to express their deep concern at the possible interpretation of some terms of the regulation. As we are all aware, the European Union has no legal competence to decide on or to fund abortion in Member States. Nor does it have the legal right to do so in the poorest of countries in the world, but this does not deny women the highest level of medical care to prevent maternal mortality and morbidity. This I absolutely support. There is no conflict presented by the wording of this amendment. It will clarify beyond doubt the intentions of this Parliament, the Commission and Council. For these reasons, I would respectfully ask for support for Amendment 53.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of the European Parliament’s amendment to the Council proposal for a regulation on specific arrangements placing restrictions upon certain persons and groups with a view to combating international terrorism. We agree that the EU must combat international terrorism in all areas. Nonetheless, we have general reservations about the proposal and, for example, reject the list of 27 terrorist organisations. These organisations all appear to be Muslim, which may be construed as discrimination when there are also non-Muslim terrorist organisations. These organisations ought, in the nature of the matter, to be included in the list, which cannot therefore be regarded as complete. Moreover, we have reservations as to whether such a list can in practice be used at all.

Political group: PSE
We have voted against point 9 in the Haug report, concerning the transfer of funds from the budget for Agricultural Policy to the reconstruction programme for the Western Balkans. Estimates show that a significant surplus will be available in the agricultural budget under heading 1a. As a great part of the programme for reconstruction of the Western Balkans is still not financed, we believe that it would be wise to transfer part of this surplus to heading 4 in the budget, should a revision of the financial perspectives become necessary. The reconstruction of the Western Balkans is on top of our political agenda. It is also one of the most important tasks for the European Union in the coming years. We agree with the intention of the Haug report that the financing problem cannot be solved only by redeployment in the Union's existing priorities in external policy. Funds must be found elsewhere, but this does not necessarily create a need for ‘fresh money’ from the Member States. Since a significant surplus will be available in the budget for agriculture, a reduction of the ceiling in heading 1a in favour of an increase of the budget for external policy would be a reasonable solution.

Political group: ELDR
If the intention is indeed to create a solution that is a real alternative to road transport taking over everything, then there must be harmonisation of the disparate rail transport infrastructures in Europe. In this respect I am forced to agree with the rapporteur. Furthermore, I feel that incorporating social standards, vocational qualifications and health and safety and working conditions in the process of creating a trans-European rail system would be the very least we could do. However, I shall be extremely vigilant in ensuring that harmonisation is carried out on the basis of the best existing social rights and not at the expense of users and employees in this sector. There is, however, a dangerous failure to address one question: in what context is network interoperability to be achieved? In the context of public services coordinated throughout Europe, which are guarantors of jobs and safety, or in the context of a market which has been sacrificed to competition and profit? The three directives in the railway package recently adopted by Parliament and the Council would suggest that Europe sees the future of trans-European rail transport in the second of these. - Van Dam report (A5-0037/2001) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, I voted for the van Dam report on the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers. And why is that? This time, I took the advice of Mr Fatuzzo the sailor. I say 'sailor', Mr President, because you may not be aware that I nearly made ships my career. I might even have worked on bulk carriers. Therefore, my potential colleague, Mr Fatuzzo the sailor, the man I am not but could have been, said to me: 'I have been sailing for many years on bulk carriers. I have read the report seeking to prevent ships sinking but, in my opinion, Mr Fatuzzo the MEP, ships sink because they are too old. Old, unusable ships need to retire. This would make sailing safer.'

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, I just wanted to say that I too have an important report on this agenda. It will be debated and voted on tomorrow, and I am very grateful and proud that this is to happen on a Friday!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am grateful for this opportunity to make some general comments about the 2001 Budget. In respect of the fisheries budget, I note that an increase of over 27% is proposed in the funding of international agreements. These are the southern agreements with third countries which enable EU vessels to fish in the waters of Morocco, Mauritania, Argentina and elsewhere. I must remind the House that these agreements currently cost EU taxpayers EUR 269 million a year and are primarily of benefit to the fishing fleets of Spain, Portugal and France. These southern agreements are always calculated on a cash-for-fish basis while northern agreements on the other hand are arranged on a reciprocal basis. It is this disparity between southern and northern Member States which is evident in the CAP as well as in the CFP budget. For example, the Commission recently announced an arbitrary cut in export refunds which will cost the Scotch whisky industry around EUR 32 million a year. Their explanation was simply that Scotch whisky is a rich industry and therefore does not require any subsidy. Why then do we discover that it is intended to increase the subsidy to wine growers by 64.5% next year, taking the budget to over EUR 1 billion? Why is the olive oil industry receiving an 8.9% increase providing them with almost EUR 2.5 billion next year, and most shockingly of all, how on earth can we justify giving to tobacco growers an increase of 2.8% taking their subsidies to over EUR 1 billion when we know that tobacco products kill half a million of our citizens every year. Meanwhile, the beleaguered dairy sector with dairy farmers suffering across the EU will receive a paltry increase of funding of only 0.3%. Let us make sure the budget is for all EU citizens and not just for the southern EU Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, thank you for your reply. It was most interesting. You say that the situation is unclear and that there is a political and military vacuum. In other words, that Iraq does not control its northern area. Now, forgive me Mr President-in-Office, but Iraq does not control its northern area because we do not let it and perhaps we are right not to. But even if we do not let Iraq control its northern area, that does not mean that we have to put up with its being controlled by someone else. What I am hearing is quite absurd. I imagine that you are unable to defend whoever it is who takes the decisions there. Except that, of course, they include members of the European Union. Perhaps they could inform you of what is happening in the area and tell you, for example, why they are allowing other people to go into and take control of the northern area of Iraq, which they do not allow Iraq to control, i.e. – let us not beat about the bush – why are they allowing military invasion? I think that this situation is scandalous in every sense of the word from an international and political point of view and I wonder how you tolerate it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is once again time for us to consider a Commission report on the implementation of Structural Funds appropriations, this time for 1998, and to express the views of our group. The rapporteur, whom I would like to thank very warmly, depicts very varied trends in expenditure under the Structural Funds. The picture is one of some positive aspects compared with previous years, combined with continuing problems. I would like to concentrate on two issues. The first is that EU financial resources have undeniably led to a process of recovery in the poorest regions and Member States. Nevertheless, the gap between the least and most developed regions of the Community has scarcely decreased. That means that disparities in regional development continue to exist, even if the overall level is higher. This is of course totally unsatisfactory as far as I and my group are concerned. And this dissatisfaction is all the greater when you consider that the continuing regional differences, as measured in income per capita, are particularly reflected in unemployment figures. Even though there has been a reduction in unemployment in the EU in absolute terms in recent months, the total number of people without jobs is still far too high. In Germany alone there are still over 3.8 million unemployed, and the employment rate is still markedly higher. If we were to use this issue alone to gauge the success of Structural Fund policy, we would pass a devastatingly negative judgment on it. Secondly, the problems of unemployment, which are not tackled under the Structural Funds alone, underscore the importance of efficient coordination of the implementation of funds from the various EU and national support programmes and of restructuring and allocating more money to all those funds that generate new jobs. As the rapporteur rightly emphasises, there was some progress in this area in 1998, but it was still far from adequate. In view of all the difficulties which undeniably exist, I regard this as a key starting point for greater effectiveness and thus more efficient use of the appropriations implemented, and I believe that this is something that people hit by unemployment in the various countries would welcome.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the rapporteurs sincerely for their work. Mr Lagendijk has already indicated that the situation in the Balkans today is quite different from that six months or a year ago, especially if we think of the elections in Kosovo and the settlement in Macedonia. But that must not mislead us into saying everything has been done, the matter has been dealt with, we can just hang around and everything will turn out well. I also think the step the Commission proposes is correct and justified. But, Commissioner, we have already said, if it is really so and I believe it is, that there are serious differences between the work of the agency and the work of the delegations, and somewhere in between them, as a sort of happy medium, the decentralised delegations, then we must draw general conclusions from that, not because, in the one case, they are good people and, in the other, bad people. It must surely also have something to do with the structure of the decision-making processes. In this respect I am sure you will not be able to give us an answer today. I want to ask you, however, one more thing, namely that, when restructuring the Commission’s work and policy in the Balkans; you will really use, to the full, the imagination that I am sure you, Commissioner, and many of your colleagues possess. For my part, I believe that the agency, which is not only a reconstruction agency but already a development agency, ought to play a greater part over all. I admit it can also be done jointly with delegations that are given additional tasks to do with decentralisation. But I do think that early next year, at the start of next year, we ought to suggest what the Commission’s assistance, support and development structure for the Balkans should look like for the next ten years, for it will take, at least, ten years to achieve the take off we all want for the Balkans and that we need for peace and stability in Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is just the sort of issue which gives rise to lofty declarations. But I should like to go into a few points which, as far as I am concerned, are relatively unclear. Problem number one: every year the media present the refusal to issue a declaration of assurance as an indication of the alleged or actual state of corruption in EU finances. At the same time, however, both the Court of Auditors and the Council of Ministers grant this refusal to issue a declaration of assurance the status of a mere water-level report, while we here in Parliament and the media see it as an indication of the poor state of the Union’s finances. I think we need to amend and clarify the basis of the matters about which we are talking. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in a situation in which every year we regularly and hence permanently, as it were, negligently cast an air of general suspicion over the state of EU finances, if this state of affairs is allowed to continue. Problem number two: of course further investigation may show that some financial irregularities are in fact cases of fraud. Nonetheless, these two points need to be kept apart both in terms of how they are defined and how they are measured, because otherwise they will both be lumped together and this will give the impression of a huge level of fraud which is not justified to that extent. Problem number three: clearly – and I am grateful to Mr Bösch for pointing this out – the findings of the Court of Auditors differ from those of the Commission as to the extent of financial irregularity which has occurred in relations between the agricultural budget and the Structural Funds. Clearly there are measuring problems, statistical problems which we must solve so that we know what we are talking about when we start investigations or conduct further investigations.

Political group: PSE