GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, in my short remarks I want to address one of the priorities that President Prodi outlined this morning. This concerns the right regulatory environment; colleagues will have copies of the text. Now it is not surprising that, in the ten pages here, the section on the right regulatory environment is by far the shortest. The Commission has not even been able to find one page of good things to say about it! And why, colleagues, is that? Because despite all the fine words about having a deregulatory model, about creating jobs, about freeing up business, about – I quote – making the European Union the cheapest and the easiest place to do business, in the year since Lisbon we have seen a catalogue of failure on almost every front. Take my own country, which claims to be in the lead of the new economy. Every business organisation and every survey confirms that more and more regulation and red tape has been piled on British business over the last twelve months. When I go and see companies in my constituency they say to me: 'Mr Harbour, we have reached the stage now where politicians are spending more time sending us new regulations about protecting and looking after our existing employees than actually encouraging us to create new jobs'. I took notes throughout the speech by the President of the Council this morning and the question of deregulation was not mentioned once! But what did she mention? On top of everything that was agreed at Lisbon we are going to have a new ecological dimension to this programme and, far from the virtuous circle that Mr Goebbels was talking about this morning, we have a vicious circle. Once we actually created new jobs; we are now looking for new burdens to place on business in the new ecological dimension! I would just like to mention one point to President Prodi concerning an important conference on the economy two weeks ago, to which he kindly invited me along with other Members. (He might have invited me in December, by the way, when he invited everybody else but I did get my invitation about two weeks beforehand). I was able to go to a short part of it and, across the European economy, businesses from every country were saying if we are going to achieve the e-economy, do not over-regulate it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to follow the example of Mr Wurtz and formally withdraw our motion for a resolution as well.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have one minute so I will not refer to the Green position on the Constitution, but will make the point that the final text of the Constitution must also address the question of Euratom. I wish to tell the presidency that we cannot enter the 21st century with a Treaty that dates from the end of the 1950s. That Treaty completely ignores the views of this House and also creates a large distortion in the internal energy market, which we created recently, because it provides billions of euros for research and cheap loans and ensures dependence on the nuclear industry. If you are not persuaded by my arguments, think of the power of the voters and citizens in Austria, Germany and Spain, in all the countries which no longer consider nuclear energy as a centrepiece of the solutions for tomorrow.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion is a stated objective that we all share. The only disagreement is about how we should achieve this, and there is ultimately the question of how effective individual measures are, or whether such measures just mean more rules and regulations, and extra expenditure and bureaucracy, which we certainly do not need. The Council has not taken all Parliament's demands on board in its common position. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the text of the original proposal has been considerably improved upon. This means that we have taken an important step on the road to updating the Community legislative framework. However, a number of issues and problem areas remain to be resolved. The Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities has closely examined all these unresolved questions, and a decision has been reached between the groups not to re-examine all the outstanding demands, but rather the most important. The rapporteur, Mrs Hautala, has made enormous efforts in order to work out viable compromises. We have the result before us. It emerged from the first reading debate that paternity rights cannot be the same as maternity rights. The compromise accordingly does not affect Member States' freedom to recognise the right to paternity leave within their borders. Both mothers and fathers should have the option of devoting themselves to family duties. This – in contrast to the opinion that we have heard expressed here – is undeniably the stated objective of the Group of the and the . Furthermore, the formula whereby a woman on maternity leave should be entitled, after the end of her period of maternity leave, to return to her job or to an equivalent post must be taken on board. However, we have problems with the definition of sexual harassment. We seem to have ended up with a rather woolly form of words here that is not helpful for any judge or other person that has to make a decision on this. Lastly, I would like to make one further brief comment opposing the annual reporting arrangements for employers on progress with equal treatment. Bureaucracy alone will not promote equal treatment. We also need to think about small and medium-sized enterprises so that they too accept women looking for jobs. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are basically in favour of the resolution that has been tabled, even if we think that this can only be interpreted as an invitation by Parliament to the Council to amend the Treaties, so that effective protection under criminal law of the Union’s financial interests can be guaranteed. The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the definition of offences common to all countries of the Union is doubtless a good idea, but it is impossible to consider putting this into practice without having first introduced a European legal system. Indeed, we are talking about criminal law, the area where resistance that national States put up to communitisation is, and will be, fierce. Indeed, it is unthinkable that we could put in place substantial and procedural legal regulations solely for one sector – that of the protection of financial interests – without first having created a European legal system. Reading the precise and comprehensive explanations in the Theato report makes you realise just how many problems still need to be resolved and what these problems are. In any case, this idea must be encouraged, and it will doubtless be during this attempt to protect financial interests that we realise that we need to include a Community corpus iuris in the Treaties. On behalf of my group, but also personally, I hope that the vital financial spirit of the Union will pave the way for the creation of a European legal system which respects citizens’ rights and guarantees, which is to say a legal system that will raise guarantees to the acceptable levels hitherto unseen in many States. Therefore, on behalf of my group, I would like to say that we support the Theato report; I nevertheless think that this is essentially a subject that should be included on the IGC agenda.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, in a world which is becoming more and more interdependent, in which the problems which affect us usually have their roots in areas poles apart from us, we are obliged to work together with other countries in order to manage the planet’s resources properly, by respecting rules which are common to all of us. Commissioner, fishing is a sensitive area which must be discussed in the Millennium Round in accordance with its characteristics and through an interpretation which links it to agricultural products, as laid down in the Treaty. This is because agriculture and fisheries have similar characteristics for us Europeans. Both activities are linked to the sustainable exploitation of natural resources and both affect the economic and social cohesion of Europe. Fishing and agriculture guarantee the survival of our socio-economic fabric and contribute in a fundamental way to the supply of our food market. Mr Lamy, fish are not shoes or screws. They cannot therefore be treated as non-agricultural products in Seattle. Agriculture and fishing provide us with food. The inevitable globalisation of the market must not mean a lowering of our food safety standards nor of the social rights of our workers, nor must it lead us to forget our poorer regions.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the light of a very recent incident, I should like to make a statement, raise a security issue and warn everyone entering and leaving this House. At about 6 p.m. yesterday evening, my assistant and I were mugged by a group of four or five young men at the visitors' entrance to the House. My assistant's handbag was grabbed and her hand injured. We were in the courtyard, in the security zone controlled by security cameras. The attack was clearly filmed and I suggest that we all study it carefully. I screamed and called for help and chased the perpetrators as far as the park. Only once my assistant had picked herself up and gone into the House did she receive any support or help from the security staff. From which I conclude that our security around the entrance is far from guaranteed. My question is: why did the security guard not come to our aid? He must have heard me and he did hear me. What has Parliament done since the last such incident? I call for a safety precinct or no-go zone round the House and at the access to the Eastman building, which we also use for our parliamentary work. We cannot have gangs of muggers striking terror here in the House, while all the security service does is to search and harass our visitors, our assistants and sometimes even us. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the fact that there is such a racket going on outside naturally means that people in here are not paying proper attention, and I think that what is going on outside is scandalous. Although I have every sympathy for social abuses, I do think that it is a bit steep that the best paid officials in Europe should be expressing themselves in this way on a day on which we are welcoming the worst paid and the least prosperous people in Europe. Today, however, we are voting for the future of half a billion people, for a future of peace and peaceful coexistence in tolerance and in diversity. The future does not lie in a world in which one world superpower and a couple of large Member States in Europe call the shots. The future lies in the self-determined cooperation and coexistence of many small ones. Today we would like to wholeheartedly welcome all those small ones and the big ones with minorities in their territories. Although I endorse what our group chairman, Mr Cohn-Bendit, has just said, I would like to place the emphasis on the minorities and their lot. Legislation that is still in place today as a condemnation resulting from so-called collective guilt should be a thing of the past. The Beneš decrees are an obstacle in the path of reconciliation between the state and its own citizens, not only in the Czech Republic but also in Slovakia. Let me turn, secondly, to the Roma minority, which, in many countries, is severely discriminated against and socially disadvantaged. It is a nation without a country, and its identity and culture must be respected and viewed as a driving force for social and economic development. My third point is that the Soviet Union's policies have resulted in the creation of Russian minorities in certain Member States. We are arguing in favour of recognising all languages and all minorities, but we must also continue to recognise the rights of the speakers of historic languages to use them in their own regions and to have them recognised, including as a basis for education. This not only applies to the accession countries but also to our own Member States. Recognition of the small ones is our guarantee of democracy in Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on a point of order. I want to apologise to Commissioner Patten because in my speech I gave him the title of Vice-President of the Commission. It was a lapsus due to the Convention. I hope that Commissioner Patten will not be offended.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I shall be very brief, but I too wish to speak on the subject of Portugal. This was an enormous tragedy and the most serious aspect is the fact that six people were killed. In addition to these deaths, which we can do nothing about, it has unfortunately already been predicted that there will be huge material damages and it will therefore be necessary to obtain the solidarity of the European Union. As Mrs Figueiredo stated, we hope this House will support us in Strasbourg.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group has tabled an amendment in plenary, in which we note that the establishment of this authority is not an anticipated expense. We also note that it cannot be funded without a revision of the Financial Perspective or a reduction of other appropriations under heading 3. The amendment has its origins in the Committee on Budgets. It is important for us to make the point that everything we do must be affordable. Sadly, the Environment Committee has chosen not to embrace several of the amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets. One of these was the time-honoured amendment that the Committee on Budgets keeps tabling for the inclusion of a recital emphasising the indispensability of transparency, scrutiny and compliance with budgetary procedure. Some agencies are still in a sorry state in this respect. The Environment Committee has also decided that the authority should be financed from the general budget alone. There is a desire to keep the authority independent. This may be a noble aim, but it is unrealistic. The fact is that we have agencies such as those on medicinal products and standardisation which are financed by means of contributions, and nobody would suggest that they have been infiltrated. The Committee on Budgets did, however, see a great deal of sense in the proposal that an examination be undertaken after three years to establish whether it would be possible and advisable to levy fees. This means, of course, that a decision to introduce fees was not taken. The proposal that contributions to staff pensions be entered on the receipts side of the Commission budget has also fallen by the wayside. Another amendment that was not adopted is our proposed requirement that the Member State hosting the Food Authority should make a financial contribution or contribute some of the land for its headquarters. And the Authority is to present a draft budget each year.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, given the small amount of time available to me, I am not going to waste a single second on rhetoric or demagoguery and, therefore, I am going to concentrate on issues which, from my point of view, are more significant. I would firstly like to say that I completely agree with Commissioner Vitorino when he says that the European Union should first teach by example and then preach. I also wish to congratulate Mr Cornillet on the excellent work he has done, despite a lack of resources. His work clearly reflects the fact that within the European Union there are still groups and people who suffer discrimination, whose fundamental rights are not properly respected. I therefore believe that we must make greater efforts in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty, as well as Article 13, after Amsterdam, since those groups mentioned in Article 13 are still suffering discrimination and a lack of respect for their fundamental rights. I am referring to issues as regrettable as racism, which still takes place in the Member States; discrimination as a result of the sexual orientation of certain groups, specifically homosexuals, who still suffer legislative discrimination in certain Member States; the protection of disabled people; women, that vast group that suffers discrimination; and immigrants, which this report reveals to be the new group which suffers the greatest discrimination. Unlike some speakers, I would like to say that I am in favour of recognising the right to vote of immigrants, who only then will enjoy sufficient respect for their rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is no doubt that we are facing a catastrophic situation in the Middle East, and one of course wonders who is to be blamed for it. It would be far too simple to attribute responsibility to one side alone, but it must give us pause for thought when Abraham Burg, a member of the Israeli Knesset whom we welcomed to this House some time ago, tells us that the Israel of today has the choice between Jewish radicalism and democracy, settlements or hope for both peoples, the deceptive visions of barbed wire, street blockades and suicide attacks or an international border between two states and Jerusalem as their shared capital. I believe that what Mr Burg is telling us calls us back to something present at the birth of Israel and of what could have become Palestine, and that is the decision of the United Nations. Some of those who spoke before me have made it clear that we have to get the United Nations more deeply involved, with a peacekeeping force to bring peace to this region. At present, that is not yet accepted, but I hope that the situation does not have to deteriorate still further and become even more extreme before we can accept the involvement of the United Nations and of peacekeeping troops. Let me add another observation on terrorism, this one from Avi Shlaim, writing in today’s Herald Tribune: ‘The real obstacle to peace is Sharon, not Arafat.’ I think that is perhaps putting it in rather too simple terms, and provocative ones at that. I share the view expressed by the Presidency, that neither Sharon nor Arafat are angels of peace, and that what is needed instead is other people who are capable of making peace. I am very grateful, too, to Mr Zimeray for very recently bringing to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy people from Israel and Palestine who want to make peace. I have two reasons for the profound conviction that leads me to abominate terrorism; not only does it kill innocent people along with the so-called enemy, but it also always bears within itself the seeds of self-destruction. It is not only Israel’s retaliation attacks that I have in mind; I also believe that a society built upon terrorism possesses an inherent capacity for self-destruction. Whilst I understand why the Presidency is taking the initiative in having certain organisations blacklisted, the one thing I would like the Council and the Commission to tell us is what we are to do about this shameful wall that runs through Israel. On what list are we going to put that? The fact is that there is violence other than terrorism in the traditional sense. Perhaps we ought to maintain a list of actions that are detrimental to peace but do not constitute terrorism. This wall – God knows – should be on it.

Political group: PSE
While reaffirming our complete opposition both to terrorist methods and to the reactionary objectives pursued by those responsible for these acts, we refuse to associate ourselves will all of the proposals from the Council of the European Union. The political leaders of the big imperial powers, both American and European, are trying to channel the legitimate emotions caused by the attacks in New York to serve a policy aimed solely at ensuring their domination over the world, and not at preserving the interests and the safety of the people. We reject any initiative, even a partial one, aimed towards military operations, which would inevitably make victims of the people, who have nothing to do with terrorism. Individual terrorism does not justify State terrorism or make it acceptable. We protest against the measures restricting individual freedoms that this climate of war is bringing about. As for the fight against the funding of terrorist groups, if the governments really want to conduct it they should immediately abolish banking secrecy and business secrecy. The prevarications and measures in this area which are as limited as they are ineffective only prove that we prefer to put up with terrorist money and money from organised crime than to ensure total transparency, which could unveil multiple trafficking and ignominies in the capitalist system itself and the considerable wastage that it costs society.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, we have discussed this matter for quite some time in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, with reports and hearings. Most of us have also had bilateral contact with a number of representatives of Algeria. We have done all of this not only because we take this issue seriously, but also because there are many issues concerning Algeria which need to be dealt with. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is particularly concerned about the human rights situation. We know that serious human rights violations are being committed in Algeria. Torture and persecution of opponents are unfortunately not unusual, and there are many reports of abuses by military and paramilitary groups. Thousands of citizens have disappeared, and it is worrying that the Algerian authorities have not permitted UN observers to investigate this situation. The situation in Kabylia is still desperate, and peaceful demonstrators have been killed. Much remains to be done in Algeria in the domains of freedom of the press, freedom of association and the establishment of the rule of law. The country also has a terrorism problem. These issues are described very well and in great detail in Mr Brok’s resolution. It also points out the need for a regular follow-up of the way in which human rights are being observed, for scrutiny and for interparliamentary dialogue. The has made constructive efforts to contribute to this resolution. It is therefore with some surprise and disappointment that we note that the have put forward a number of amendments which considerably dilute the resolution. If these amendments are adopted, we believe that the resolution will not have the required force or constitute the complement to the recommendation by Mr Obiols i Germà that is so important. The would vote against the resolution. It would be a shame if these points disappeared, because it is very important to put pressure on the Algerian Government. The association agreement is important for Algeria. In spite of the agreement’s shortcomings, we believe that Europe has to help Algeria to build up its economic, political and democratic institutions. As has been pointed out, the agreement constitutes an extremely important part of the Barcelona process. Madam President, by way of conclusion I wish to address a few words to the Commission. What is the significance of Article 2 of the association agreement: the human rights clause? We have discussed it many, many times, but it has never been acted upon. What is so terribly difficult about finding mechanisms for temporarily or, if necessary, permanently breaking off cooperation, with reference to Article 2, when serious human rights violations are carried out? If we do not lead from the front on this issue, we will actually make ourselves look ridiculous, and we risk not being taken seriously in the field of foreign policy. If so, all our talk of a human rights dimension in foreign policy will be nothing but resoundingly empty words.

Political group: ELDR