GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President-in-Office, there are two issues I would like to raise. Firstly, it is good to hear that the IGC has the highest priority for you. I am a bit puzzled by this, however, because you thanked the Italians for their good work but at the same time we understand from the press that you have not been given any notes or any indication as to where agreement was reached. At the same time the Italians flatter themselves that they reached agreement on 95% of the issues. If that is true, I urge you to find those notes in Brussels, finalise the 95% and use your time to make up the last 5%. I urge you to bear in mind that this not only involves consultation and reporting back in March, but will also require firm deadlines to be set for reconvening the summit in May, and a very hard line to be taken on this, otherwise there will be no chance of concluding the IGC before the elections. The other issue is the Statute for Members. Without a doubt, there will be a populist campaign against the statute over the next few weeks. The main argument will be that the salary is too high. It is high, I agree, but it is vital to remember the price paid for this salary: agreement on the travel expenses rules, which presently allow Members to pocket, tax-free, tens of thousands of euros a year under a very questionable system. We must be mindful of the link between the travel expenses rules and salary. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, democracy alone will deliver states from barbarism, ethnic warfare and despotic and military governments. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is no exception to this rule. Despite the 1999 Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, which provided for a UN-supervised ceasefire, the disarmament of all the armed factions, the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the establishment of internal dialogue between the government and the opposition, both armed and civilian, the state of war has nonetheless continued and is paralysing both the economic and political situation throughout the whole region. The European Parliament must condemn in the strongest terms all these acts of violence perpetrated against the civilian population and must also condemn the military intervention by neighbouring countries and demand the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Following the assassination of President Laurent Kabila, the international community and the European Parliament must intervene in this political transition. We must ask the new Head of State to lift the ban affecting political parties. Mr Joseph Kabila must demand and must clearly announce a timetable for the opening of internal Congolese dialogue and the organisation of free elections. The civilian population, whose economy and welfare has already been hit hard – particularly in the suburbs of Kinshasa, must not once again fall victim to the lack of political interest on the part of our continent, nor of the perfectly casual attitude of investors and firms operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more especially in terms of human rights, the environment and the rule of law. We have political responsibility in Africa and we must take action to safeguard the dignity of the peoples of Africa.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Buitenweg and quoting the words of Commissioner Vitorino. He said that Mrs Buitenweg’s report takes a pragmatic approach, and I fully share this view. I have had an absence of approximately three years from this Parliament, and I am extremely surprised at the stormy, heated debates on this report – even within my own group, I have to say in fairness. After all, we are only talking about an evaluation and a reassessment of the agreements made in the past. I cannot imagine, therefore, why we should not be in favour of it. These are all people who consider it perfectly normal to send their car for inspection after a number of years, and they cannot comprehend why an evaluation should take place here after a period of over thirty years, and conclusions be drawn from it. What is this actually all about, Mr President? It is about us all wanting to curb the production, traffic in and abuse of drugs, in particular the abuse of extremely harmful drugs. No one voting in favour of Mrs Buitenweg’s report is intending to offer up children to any kind of drug abuse. The only question that we must answer together is: what is the best method? I cannot do that. If I could – off the cuff, as it were – as Mr Pirker can, it would be very convenient, and I would probably be very rich, as I would have found a solution to a global problem. I must honestly admit that I cannot. I do think, however, that those who can – who can carry out an evaluation on the basis of global data – should be free to do so. In this connection, I also wish to argue once more in favour of uniform statistics. Anyone who immerses himself in this problem cannot escape the conclusion that very few statistics exist that are comparable. I am of the opinion that one should only venture to propose changes to the policy on the basis of correct, clear data. It may well be that an evaluation of the current policy will mean confirming this policy, purely for want of a better solution. I am not advocating this, nor do I expect it, but it is a possible outcome of this report. I do not understand, then, why so many amendments aiming to prevent the evaluation have been tabled. I should like, therefore, to ask those Members calling for others to vote against the Buitenweg report, or in any case the parts of it regarding the evaluation, to have another good think about what is really the best way now to solve the serious drugs problem together. Burying one's head in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist is not the right way. Daring to carry out an evaluation together, on the basis of correct data – that, in my opinion, is the right way.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is a real pity that the Intergovernmental Conference will not be considering certain essential elements on the area of freedom, security and justice, none of which can be achieved at the expense of the others. I also regret that our joint motion for a resolution does not mention the problems linked to Eurodac, even though the Council has just announced, contrary to the Treaties, that this body should remain purely intergovernmental. This would, of course, exclude the European Parliament and the Court of Justice from any control in this area. Similarly, faced with the multiplication of information systems such as Europol and Eurodac, this House should have repeated its demand for an independent commission on data processing and the protection of privacy in order to preserve our individual freedoms, in addition to democratic and judicial control. The idea of citizenship is also most notably absent from this text. Yet this is a subject of vital importance. It is a cornerstone of the negotiations on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also on the constitutionalisation of the Union. When the Union is enlarged, it is this citizenship which must be at the heart of our European project in order to ensure human and sustainable development. To conclude, we must realise that such a pale and insipid text cannot satisfy the people of Europe. We must take care that we do not distance ourselves too much from their aspirations if we are to build a fairer and more democratic Europe with a greater sense of solidarity.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Representative of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Laeken European Council which concludes the Belgian Presidency of the Union has been a success. I do not say this out of courtesy or convenience but because I profoundly believe that the Heads of State and Government, over recent days, have sent the signal that the Europeans were waiting for, one of clarity and the rejection of pretence. The Laeken Summit has achieved its main ambition: to adopt a declaration on the future of Europe, opening the way to the future great reform of the Union. As the President-in-Office of the Council has stressed, there was no taboo at Laeken, no issue has been avoided, and I hope that this formula will become a reality, since European construction has too often been opaque, or at least the reserve of the initiated. Please allow me, on behalf of the French delegation of the Group, to express our pleasure at the nomination of Mr Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as president of the Convention, as well as Mr Giuliano Amato and Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene as vice-presidents. These eminent people are renowned for their experience and their determination to persuade people to favour a Europe which fully and democratically carries out its competences, but only its competences, which would be clearly defined. At a time when Europe has a currency, is being enlarged and is trying to provide globalisation with a soul and with values, it is high time that we reviewed our vision of public life and the relations between our citizens and their institutions at all levels. A new era was begun at Laeken. We are delighted. But there is still a long way to go. We must therefore continue with our efforts. ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this Parliament has warned time and time again against the danger of unravelling the Treaty by taking away one bit, then another, then another. We warned even the Commission against putting forward its quite reasonable proposals, on the grounds that if you start to undo one bit of the draft Constitution, then another bit will unravel and that will be the excuse for somebody else to come up with another proposal, and so on. At the last debate, we warned against the Spanish and Polish Governments’ proposal to revert to the Nice formula for voting in the Council – quite a selfish proposal if I might say so. And now we see that things have gone a stage further, when a sectoral council suddenly wakes up – after months of negotiations and discussions on these very subjects and after the Convention has finished – and halfway through the IGC wants to wade in and rewrite the draft Constitution. And it wants to revert, not even to what is currently in the Treaty, but to something that is worse than the current Treaties as regards the powers of the European Parliament. Frankly, that is unacceptable. Furthermore, I would submit that the points they have raised are ones that in many cases have not even been flagged up by their own governments at the start of the IGC as issues on which they wished to have some discussion in that forum. They are new points, and therefore we have a problem in that our governments would appear - at least in some cases - to be divided on this issue. In those circumstances I would invite the presidency to resist the demands of this sectoral council. I would invite all colleagues in this House to engage, back home with their own governments, in the debates that are no doubt taking place as we speak on these subjects. I would encourage them to bring some sense to the positions of their own governments and to bring us back to the more sensible negotiating line that most governments – at least those of the original six Member States and the United Kingdom – seem to be taking at the beginning of the IGC, in allowing this draft Constitution go through intact, albeit with a few technical adjustments. That is what we should aim for.

Political group: PSE
In the Swedish referendum on EU membership in 1994, all the political parties campaigning for Swedish membership of the EU asserted that marriage legislation and issues relating to cohabitation and abortion did not come within the decision-making competence of the EU. All the parties promised to work for these issues remaining within strictly national areas of legislation, without interference by the EU. We Moderates stand by this pledge to the Swedish electorate and believe that national legislation is much better than common EU legislation in this area. We observe that other Swedish political parties have abandoned their pledge and are now prepared to transfer the issues to EU level. In the longer term, this will be to the detriment of Swedes and is in danger of conflicting with Swedish traditions and customs. There is no obvious need for coordination. The best adapted legislation is obtained if the various national parliaments within the EU devise the legislation themselves. Prior to EU enlargement, respect must also be shown for the legislation of individual candidate countries in this area. We Swedish Moderates share the Swedish view on the rights to abortion and homosexual partnerships but, out of respect for other EU countries, we have voted against the section of the Brok report demanding new legislation on abortion and partnerships in Poland.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to express my perplexity and, at the same time, my anger about the situation which we have before us concerning the four Greek and three Filipino seamen from the tanker the Tasman Spirit. This tanker ran aground last summer outside the port of Karachi in Pakistan as the result of an error on the part of the Pakistani pilot, who was steering it into port. The sea levels were very low because the tide was out, the mistake was made on the part of the Pakistani authorities and we had a dramatic incident. Of course, tonnes of oil were spilt into the sea but, from that point on, the way the Pakistani authorities acted was incomprehensible. The sole and only victims of this unfortunate incident were the Greek and Filipino seamen. The matter was not dealt with globally in order to see what were the responsibilities of the company, of the Pakistani pilot and so on. All the blame was laid at the feet of the Greek and Filipino seamen, who are receiving unacceptable treatment in prison and one of whom attempted the other day to commit suicide. Apart from that, we had something else: the head of the salvage team, a Greek seaman, also went to help and he too is being held by the Pakistani authorities as we speak. This situation is, without any doubt, tragic. I personally have met the families of the seamen, who are honestly in a state of despair, and that is why Parliament must react and, I believe, it will react, because this is first and foremost a humanitarian issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the end of the parliamentary term approaches, we should be very civil to one another, and I note that debating the issue of the World Bank report is a very good initiative. We are also aware that we have an expert in our midst, as Mrs Frassoni is a member of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank. It is quite right, therefore, that we should discuss this issue and endeavour to coordinate the approaches of the EU Member States. Speaking of the World Bank in general terms, it unfortunately appears that, in some respects, it has the worst record when it comes to the management of development projects. When I was in Niger around a month ago, all the parties in Niger had put their work on the Education For All plan in order; except the World Bank. Its management is so concentrated that it does not work. I hope that Mrs Frassoni will be able to address this matter, too, as part of her work with the other members of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank. We know that the World Bank has experience in this area, as it said long ago that it is access to resources of this kind that leads to increased conflicts. We must take its recommendations seriously, therefore. They must serve as a guide in our grants for projects and our decisions on various nations and the degree to which we choose to help them.

Political group: ELDR
Commissioner, I am quite surprised to hear you say that it has been proven for 20 years that the single market governed by competition law is perfectly – as you said – compatible with social objectives. I have already heard more sense from the Commission, when it started to express a doubt precisely as to this ability of competition law to bring about the achievement of all the social and environmental objectives. I believe that, in actual fact, we, and the Commission, in particular, would find it much easier to make these self-congratulatory statements if we had an evaluation, as my fellow Members have said. I feel that there is absolutely nothing to be gained in any quarter by underestimating the huge expectations of the European citizens, who are demanding more services, better quality and a higher level of safety. I believe that, if we were to turn a deaf ear to the doubts being expressed today regarding the continuity and sustainability of these services, particularly since they have been called into question as a result of disasters and particularly since this deterioration is currently evident in a number of public services, we would be severely jeopardising the future of Europe and the result of the decision that its citizens will have to take on the future Constitution. You have decided to open a broad consultation process on the Green Paper. It is true that this initiative is very surprising, given its connection with the – extremely problematic – debates that we wish to hold within the Convention with a view to fully enshrining the right to public service in the future European Constitution. I would therefore like to hear you speak about the organisation of the agendas, for it would appear quite incredible that a debate should be opened on the feasibility or usefulness of a framework directive under the current Treaties, even if the aim of the debate is to achieve the recognition of and basis for a European approach to public services in the future Treaty. Moreover, as regards the consultation procedure, we have already been sufficiently traumatised by a number of proposals which were clearly going against a whole range of different interests within European society. I would like the Commission to explain clearly which public method of hearing will be used to enable the different players – users, trade unions, NGOs, local and regional authorities etc. – to make themselves heard during this consultation on the Green Paper.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to add my thanks to Mrs Smet in particular for doing an excellent job of work on the working time directive and also, of course, to Mr Rocard and to you, yourself. I would agree with Philip Bushill-Matthews as well. I think the strength of having all-party support throughout the UK on our delegation was very, very useful. I would like to talk specifically about junior doctors. I am very pleased that they are going to be brought in line with the working time directive. There are 270 000 junior doctors across the EU who will be affected by this. 50.1% in my constituency work over 72 hours a week as do 10 000 in the UK as a whole. You can see from those figures that it is extremely important that all Member States actually meet those objectives and I mean the nine-year objective. The present situation is not good for patients or doctors alike – they have our life in their hands. We would not want to be treated by a drunken doctor and I do not believe that we should be treated by an over-tired doctor. Evidence proves that somebody who is impaired by tiredness is impaired in the same way as drunkenness. The British Medical Association was saying that 15% of junior doctors were leaving the profession citing stress, overwork and length of hours. A lot of those were going to Australia and New Zealand where the working practices were better. We have to stop that drain. The nine-year timetable, of course, is an improvement on what the Council of Ministers wanted. It is made up of four years' implementation and five years to bring down the working time from 58 to 48 hours. It is far better than what the Council wanted which was the 13-year period. I, of course, would have preferred a shorter time. As I have said before, our life is in their hands and it is important that we get this right. The UK Government, of course, was part of the problem. They maintain that they cannot achieve the reduction in this timescale. I believe that they are wrong and that is why we have the extension for two years and also the extension after that for one year. But as everyone else has said, it has to be in exceptional circumstances. There must be rigorous notification and justification procedures and I hope that the British Government, and other Member State governments who feel that they can delay further by seeking two years and then another will feel so embarrassed that they will not seek to do so and meet the goal in nine years. It is not twelve years – it is nine years and we must state that very, very clearly. It is long enough – I would have liked it to have been shorter, but let us hope the governments, and the British Government in particular, adhere to that.

Political group: ELDR
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of Mrs Monica Frassoni’s report, according to which the European Parliament is to accept the agreement entered into with the Commission about the implementing provisions for the Council’s decision of 28 June 1999 concerning comitology. In all matters, we attach importance to the fact that there should be the greatest possible transparency in connection with the decision-making procedures involved in EU cooperation, for example with a view to guaranteeing the necessary democratic control. Through the agreement, the European Parliament will automatically be sent the relevant material in connection with decisions made in accordance with the rules under Article 251 of the Treaty. We should also like to see this arrangement extended to other areas in which, following the agreement, the European Parliament’s relevant committees will be sent material when they ask for it. With the approval of this agreement, we have not achieved the final goal of transparency and democratic control where the comitology procedures are concerned. However, it constitutes real progress in the right direction, which is something we do not wish to obstruct. (The sitting was suspended at 1.23 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR JAMES PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group, the Group of the , would like to discuss Afghanistan and Cuba in September, provided that both points are well prepared in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy. We have a feeling that neither of these topics should be dealt with by singling out one item, but rather that this should be done thoroughly. Both topics can then be put on the agenda in September. This applies to both Cuba and Afghanistan. We therefore support the idea of replacing Afghanistan by Argentina.

Political group: PSE
I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for that reply, but is it not a fact that our trust in American civil liberties guarantees is being severely shaken and that it is a tragedy that in the United States, under the Bush administration, standards of fairness and due process are being sacrificed? Just two days ago a federal appeals court rejected attempts to clarify the legal situation of some Guantanamo Bay detainees, including two Britons. The court, in a decision that could leave the detainees in legal limbo indefinitely, said that foreigners had no rights under the US Constitution and could not invoke the jurisdiction of US courts to test the legality of restraints on their liberty. This shocking situation, which contrasts with what will be the case when the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding – under which foreigners as well as EU citizens will have their basic rights guaranteed – comes hot on the heels of other miscarriages of justice such as the case of a Briton who was executed when a Texas judge refused to look at DNA evidence and another Briton held for three weeks in prison in South Africa because of FBI incompetence. In these circumstances, how can we trust the American criminal justice and law enforcement system? Should you not be consulting the European Parliament before making the agreements that the Council intends to make?

Political group: ELDR