GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the 1976 directive has proved a powerful weapon in combating discrimination against women in the labour market in Europe. Today we are dealing with the necessary revision of this directive. It has turned out, as others have already said, to be a complicated operation, of which the end is not yet in sight, and not everything that has crossed the table is a model of elegant legislation in this respect, but I am hopeful of a successful outcome. In my view the following three principles should guide us in future and consequently I have three questions to the Commissioner. Firstly: the legislation on sexual equality, at present scattered over eight directives, should demonstrate legal clarity and coherence and be easier for citizens to understand. It is doubtful whether the present revision operation will be able to contribute to this aim. For this reason I should like to ask the Commissioner what she thinks about a codification of existing European legislation on equal treatment of men and women. Secondly: European legislation on equal treatment should offer an equal level of protection, with as far as possible identical definitions of the concept of discrimination, exceptional provisions, sanctions, etc. Not only for the sake of the principle of equality itself, but mainly with a view to forming a coherent body of law. Deviations from this principle should be based on the nature of the case itself, for example in relation to pregnancy, or the provisions of the Treaty, as in the case of positive measures. In the complicated process of legislation this principle is sometimes under pressure, but I assume that the Commissioner shares this view. I should therefore like to know from her what she can and is prepared to do about this. Could she, for example, ask her network of legal experts for a comparative study of the legislation as regards the various grounds of discrimination? My third question to the Commissioner relates to the area in which the equal-treatment legislation will be applied. This also cries out for further equality. When can we expect to see legislation already announced several times by the Commissioner, on equal treatment for men and women outside the labour market, and when will she put forward legislative proposals for the various grounds of discrimination?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent report on linking relief, rehabilitation and development. It is an enormously important subject, fraught with problems. There is no doubt at all that there is an increase in disasters worldwide, both man-made, as in Afghanistan, and natural, such as in Goma, DRC. It needs the full cooperation of all parties to have most effect: the donors, the beneficiaries, implementing parties like governments and NGOs, and bilateral aid. In Afghanistan we have seen the bombing and destruction that has taken place. That will mean urgent and instant relief, the rehabilitation of millions of refugees and development aid. It was horrifying to see in today's paper that a poor family has sold its twelve-year-old daughter into marriage just to get enough food to feed the rest of the family. This is tragic. So getting aid to those most in need is absolutely vital and that requires local knowledge and the right kind of aid. Two weeks ago ECHO informed the Committee on Development and Cooperation that the situation in Goma was totally under control and that everything that was required was there. That very night we heard NGOs stating on the television that 90,000 were starving and that babies were already dying. Is this opportunism, accurate evidence or over-reacting? It is almost impossible to plan for natural disasters. It is better to have a centralised European depot that can react quickly in an appropriate way. Linkage is all about cooperation and one body being responsible for decisions.

Political group: PPE-DE
The arguments for promoting competition imply yet another attack on the public telecommunications sector in an area of basic services that are vital to the public, without any corresponding improvement in the public service provided. As the report states, unbundled access to the local loop allows new entrants to compete with notified operators in offering high bit-rate data transmission services for continuous Internet access and for multimedia applications based on digital subscriber line technology as well as voice telephony services, using local network infrastructures that have already been installed by other operators, generally public service operators. Furthermore, the haste with which this liberalisation of the highly profitable telecommunications sector is going ahead, following the conclusions of the Lisbon Summit, does not augur well for the protection of consumers’ interests or the interests of people working in the sector. This is another reason for voting against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have just voted against Amendment 71. If one looks at the text of Amendment 72, it tries to introduce a sentence relating it to Article 17, paragraph 2(a). As this Article has gone now, I propose that we attach this Article 72 to Article 16, paragraph 2. Before the vote on Amendment No. 163:

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too should like to thank Mrs Avilés Perea for her excellent report and, to tell the truth, there is not much to add to what she has written and what has been said this evening. I therefore want to focus on the lessons we should learn from the Avilés Perea report, from what the Commissioner has said and also, I believe, from the Gröner report. First of all, I think it is important to say that these two initiative reports aim to be a tool and a stimulus for the subsequent steps that the Commission, Parliament and the Member States have to achieve, because they focus on the tools that we should have available both at the planning stage and at the stage of assessing the impact that the policies we issue have on the actual, real lives of our citizens, especially women. From this perspective, I think there are some important, positive examples: the indicators defined in the European employment strategy and the impact assessment carried out by the Commission can be a splendid benchmark for doing the same thing in other policy areas too, for instance in the assessment of Structural Fund programmes, and I am pleased to have heard the Commissioner say this evening that these will be the points taken into consideration in the mid-term review. It is necessary, therefore, to develop the tools of statistics, the presence of women in decision-making positions and committees, and impact assessment indicators. To these I believe another tool will be added, which we are developing as a guideline in the Committee on Women’s Rights: budget structure from a gender perspective. I think this will be an important package that we can work on together, in order to have some effect on the implementation of these policies at all levels – national, regional and local – in the Member States. We must, I think, provide greater information on the tools available, emphasise the positive things that have been done – even if we are not completely happy because there is still a lot to do – but we must not become dejected that we do not have any tools at our disposal: the tools are there, so let us try and use them!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, over a period of 150 years, missionaries and aid workers have fostered knowledge of international affairs and commitment in my own country amongst broad sections of the population. It is important for each individual Member State to retain and extend the opportunities it has for asserting, through its government and embassies, the voice and commitment of its own people on international issues. Embassies constitute one of the most essential and most obvious expressions of national sovereignty. History shows how, for example, a country such as Norway fought to conduct its own diplomacy in its struggle for independence from Sweden. By having its own embassy, a country can also provide important services to its citizens when they visit another country. The embassy can provide them with a service in their own language. At the same time, embassies constitute indispensable sources of information and centres of analytical work for the various governments of the countries concerned. Mr Galeote Quecedo has done a very fine job, but I am sceptical about the following points: recital E concerning the establishment of a professional and permanent community diplomatic service; and recital P in which there is talk of setting up EU embassies in the future. What exactly does this mean, Mr Galeote Quecedo and Commissioner Patten? Paragraph 1 – the setting up of a College of European Diplomacy. In which language is it to operate – in Spanish, English, French or in the languages of all the Member States? Paragraph 12 – in which I think the embassies of the Member States are being told that they are to issue joint statements of their views. Is this not already clear to them under the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy? Finally, there is talk of guaranteeing coordinated representation in the EU and other international bodies. Sweden and many other countries have proud traditions in the United Nations. Let us continue along these lines.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, unfortunately I have to inform you and the House of a new tragedy at sea. A few days ago, a French vessel, the An Oriant, based in Brittany, was shipwrecked. Eight of its crewmembers died. Yesterday, the fishing vessel Arosa, which was flying the British flag – and like the An Oriant, was fishing in Irish waters – was also shipwrecked. The majority of its crew were Spanish. The result could not have been more horrendous, Madam President. Of the thirteen crewmembers, only one survived. Five bodies have been found and the rest have disappeared. On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries, I would ask you, Madam President, to send Parliament’s condolences to the families of the victims and to the local authorities in both Brittany and in Marín, Galicia, from where the majority of the victims came. I also wish it to be noted, Madam President, that the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries, which it is my honour and responsibility to chair, is very sensitive to these accidents at sea. This is demonstrated by the fact that we are currently producing a very significant own-initiative report, the rapporteur for which is our vice-chairperson, Mrs Miguélez, on the causes of accidents involving fishing vessels in the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Seville European Council will have to address the issue of the political role of the Union once again. I regret to say that our great economic influence fails still today to be matched by equally effective political action on the world stage. The Middle East conflict is only the last in a series of cases in which the Union has failed to play a leading role in endeavours to bring peace. Although it is true, however, that we are still far off the objective of a politically strong Europe, it must be said that the Spanish Presidency has helped us to make some progress. Prime Minister Aznar’s words to the effect that we must all join forces to tackle the extremely thorny issue of illegal immigration are confirmation of the will for Europe to have a single foreign and security policy. The immigration crisis must be tackled responsibly and resolutely, without populism and, above all, without concealing the importance of the issue, as we are all too often wont to do. We need increasing cooperation to control the Union’s borders and the development of a single border policy – it is the Italian Government’s proposal which has been accepted and, I believe, selected by Commissioner Vitorino too – but we also need the costs of containing migration flows in Europe to be shared. That is not all, however. President Prodi is right to say that the causes of uncontrolled immigration must be eradicated. We need to work towards cooperation which genuinely helps the people, not the local dictators, as has all too often been the case. We need to take action to alleviate the debt, as has recently been pointed out at the FAO Summit in Rome too. However, we must not overlook the need for legislation which combines rigour and solidarity, and the only way to achieve this is to regulate migration flows, welcoming those who wish to work in Europe with great respect and rejecting those attempting to organise unlawful activities which are all too often criminal and are sometimes linked to terrorism. The European citizens are demanding this. I am sure that Seville will deliver the response they are waiting for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the directive on ozone in ambient air is intended to provide a response to the problem of tropospheric ozone produced and trapped in the air around the earth’s surface which, as we all know, has damaging effects on both human health and on the planet’s vegetation, ecosystems and on the environment as a whole. The concentration of ozone, as we know, is due to the accumulation in the atmosphere of precursor agents, but there is no easy solution, of course, to eradicating them, because these precursor agents sometimes act to reduce ozone in the atmosphere. Various measurements taken at national level have shown that, in climatic conditions such as high luminosity and a stable atmosphere, reducing the precursor agents does not produce the desired effect of reducing the concentration of ozone. In fact, it does the complete opposite. Therefore, the solution to the problem of ozone concentration is extremely complex and simply shutting off the sources that generate precursor agents is not an appropriate measure. An example of this would be closing down a factory chimney that emits smoke, which is a precursor agent of ozone, into the atmosphere. The rapporteur and various members of the Committee on the Environment – including myself – have been working intensely for almost two years to both improve the Commission’s proposal, which was undoubtedly necessary, and also to achieve a balanced proposal that would ensure maximum compliance by the Member States. Lastly, in October, a joint text was produced, which was then approved by the Conciliation Committee. I should like to emphasise a very positive aspect of the proposal that has been adopted, which is the combination of long-term objectives with a short-term approach to these high-risk situations, and all the measures designed to ensure rigorous control and monitoring of ozone levels in the atmosphere in all Member States. I also think it is important to apply the principle of transparency where information is concerned, since the population must be more and better informed about the incidences of ozone levels in the atmosphere. Another important aspect is the consideration of meteorological conditions and comparisons between the various Member States, which must lead to information being provided so that we can monitor developments in this issue in the various Member States. This directive represents a major step in the right direction, providing a balanced approach to the problem of contamination and, together with the directive on national emission ceilings, we feel that these will genuinely prove to be very important tools with which we can address environmental problems and especially the problem of contamination in a cross-functional way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the December Council of fisheries ministers will have a hefty agenda in terms of agreeing the first package of CFP reform proposals. The Commission says that it wants from that a new way of doing things, a better way of doing things, involving stakeholders more, using a multi-annual, multi-species ecosystem approach to management. And yet, at the very same time, the Commission seems hell-bent on pushing through its current proposals on cod and hake recovery, which, I believe, are so different from previous versions that they ought to be put out to further consultation. I also think that to press ahead and agree that package with its wide-ranging consequences will, in fact, torpedo the CFP reform package and prevent any perception forthcoming from the Council that the EU actually means what it says when it states that it wants to do things in a better way. I think that the Council should concentrate on the reform, get it right and then implement it urgently, setting up a regional advisory body to allow the stakeholders to be part of the solution to the cod and hake crisis and not just to be seen as the problem.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I certainly wished to comment. When one is seated in the second row one can be seen more easily than when one is rather further away. Concerning the three parts, the rapporteur’s opinion is to vote for the first and the second. He does however advise voting against the third part, contrary to a note sent to the presidency. As is abundantly clear, the third part clearly states that work should concern stem cells from embryos or foetuses resulting from spontaneous miscarriages or abortions undertaken to safeguard the health of the mother. That is outdated wording. I am indeed sorry. It does appear that in this debate we are reworking the debate on abortion and this is causing me considerable concern. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, once again we are debating this subject against a background of depression, fear and trepidation in fishing communities, particularly around Scotland, against a background of an almost total lack of confidence in the European Union's ability to manage fisheries at all. We would not be facing so many crises if European management had been a success, would we? Who has a vested interest in restoring stocks to sustainable levels? It is fishermen and fishing communities and only fishing communities. Why then is it continually the case that they feel that their views, their interests, and particularly their expertise, are ignored in management decision-making? Looking from Scotland it is impossible to justify or to accept the apparent inequitability of management decisions of late. Scots are using the largest mesh sizes in all of the European Union and yet are taking the biggest catch cuts, while those using smaller meshes fare better. Once again, we have the threat of complete closure of haddock, whiting, prawn and other fisheries related to cod allegedly. Yet no mention of industrial fisheries which fish for non-human consumption being curtailed. I am considering voting against the Stihler report, not because I am against its content which after all was substantially shaped by amendments of mine that were accepted in committee, but in protest at the likelihood that the Commission will ignore it anyway. It has after all repeatedly pointed out that there is no legal obligation upon it to consult regional advisory councils. In any case there will not be one in time for a cod recovery plan to be adopted. We all know that the Council 's output on this subject will probably ignore our views as well. Member States are very often accused, even by the Commission, of ignoring the science in their determination to defend their national interest in the Council. I just wish that Scotland had a Member State government which would defend its national interest in the fisheries council. Last December the then UK Fisheries Minister continued a long tradition of actively voting against Scotland's interests in the Council of Ministers and the new Minister, who finally managed to get himself to Scotland this week, where 70% of the UK fisheries fleet is based, told fishing communities to get real – presumably asking them to accept that there will be more pain to come because he knows that he will do nothing to help. The social and economic pain being felt by families in Scotland's coastal communities is very real. They know the realities of recent decisions and their effects on them. It is totally unacceptable that the UK Government has absolutely no intention, yet again, of doing anything other than increasing that pain.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to address Commissioner Schreyer. I am rather surprised to hear her say I wrote her a strongly worded letter. She quotes me as having written that she should kindly come to the Committee on Budgetary Control. That cannot be true. I wrote a businesslike letter in which I asked her to come to us in the Committee for Budgetary Control in accordance with our agreement between the Commission and Parliament. If Mrs Schreyer has other commitments, I do, however, assume that she is able to send a senior official to give the Committee the information it requires. The letter has no other meaning. Mrs Schreyer, I am somewhat astonished that you read the letter in that way. It was entirely businesslike. I just wanted to explain that. Thank you.

Political group: PPE-DE
The third part of my question is slightly broader. I ask by what authority can the validity of a CE mark be challenged? The Commissioner has said in his first answer that it was not the Commission that would make a ruling and in his second supplementary he said that it would be the competent national authority. Is there any system of mutual recognition of a ruling by one national authority, or would it be necessary to challenge the use of a CE mark on something like a stun gun separately in each of the 15 Member States? Is there not some overall body that can say this is valid? It seems to be a very long-winded process if it has to be challenged 15 separate times.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Garot on his report. He is one of the Members of this House whom I hold in very high esteem. However, if I read his report, my criticism in this case is that the Socialist dimension is far too prevailing. Too much attention has been paid to the premiums while too little consideration has been given to the competitiveness of agriculture and horticulture. It is generally the case that the European debate on incomes in agriculture is too much dominated by the question as to the level of premiums rather than what the market problems are. Starting with the premiums, the Netherlands receives far too small a share of the European budget. The Netherlands accounts for 7% of agricultural production in the European Union, yet only receives 2.1% of the agricultural budget and 1% of the rural development budget. This is out of all proportion. Of course, there is a reason for this. The negotiations in Berlin in 1999 were conducted by Mr Kok and Mr Zalm, neither of whom had any affinity with agriculture and horticulture. That is not only the reason why the Dutch countryside does not receive what it is entitled to; it is also the real reason why the Dutch net contribution to the European Union is so high. This excessive contribution is best remedied by giving the Netherlands a substantially higher amount for agriculture and rural development. There is also another point that is given too little consideration in the development of agricultural incomes, namely the position of the so-called free products. The high European requirements in terms of environment, food safety and animal welfare have a knock-on effect on the cost price of – for example – meat, vegetables and potatoes, and put European agriculture at a worldwide disadvantage in terms of cost price. That is the real reason underlying a number of crises, including the current one in pig farming. My proposal is that in the case of new European legislative proposals affecting agriculture and horticulture, an income assessment should be done in order to check the true repercussions of this legislation on the workers in the fields.

Political group: PPE-DE