GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, only with a sense of irony or with a sense of humour – since, as Rabelais said that what distinguishes man is his capacity to laugh – can we talk about progress in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. It would be more accurate to talk about steps backward than progress. Nevertheless, the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference to give the European Union a Constitution worthy of the name would certainly be a major disappointment for Europe’s citizens, who would clearly feel let down. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Europeans have accepted the idea of the Constitution because of its symbolic importance and because of its capacity to mobilise people. By way of example, a recent survey conducted in Portugal shows that 69% of the Portuguese people are in favour of the Constitution and only 9% are against and the view from other European countries is more or less the same. The Constitution is nevertheless within reach and can easily be approved by 5 December and signed in Rome, the Eternal City. All the Member States have to do is simply accept the project that came out of the Convention and give up on the damaging idea of rewriting it or of pulling it apart. Some States actually appear to want to be negative about Europe; countries that are obsessed with the fact that they are big or, conversely, that they are small. Some countries appear to demand only rights and make no mention of duties and others are more concerned about creating blocking minorities than working majorities. If this happens and if national self-interest prevails, what will be the fate of the European spirit and of the historical idealism associated with European integration? This would sound their death-knell and would scupper them for good. I, like many European citizens, also wish to have a Constitution that is more federal, more socially minded, and which encompasses a genuine common foreign and defence policy. This Constitution must then be given legitimacy, as a constitutional text must be, by the citizens, by means of a referendum. I do, however, accept and support the current text, which represents enormous progress, in both form and content, and which heralds a new era of European constitutionalism. I therefore say ‘Long live the Constitution’!

Political group: PSE
Road traffic accidents are the most common cause of death among children and persons under the age of 45 in the EU, which makes the problem a major public health issue. In Sweden, ‘Vision Zero’ has been approved unanimously by Parliament as an overall objective of the work on road safety. However, in order for these road safety objectives to be achieved, reliable tools are needed for meeting the targets. Effective traffic surveillance, including vehicle inspections, speed monitoring using modern camera techniques, breathalyser tests, seat belt checks and pupillometer measurement in cases where drug-use may be suspected, is what is needed in the short term to bring down the number of fatalities on the roads. In order for the target of zero road fatalities to be realistic, more use must be made of public transport so as to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. We will support the report in the final vote, but we take the view that the efforts towards harmonisation are excessive. The report is a parliamentary initiative, the main thrust of which is to demand proposals for the harmonisation of road safety at EU level. We consider this desire to increase road safety to be all well and good, but this is not an issue in which the EU should be investing resources. Rather, it is an issue which is best dealt with at Member State level.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, one of the aspects of the discussion on the Experts’ report concerns Community personnel which includes, I believe, the staff of the European Parliament. This is why my question is addressed as much to Mr Kinnock as to the President of the Parliament. In their report, the Experts highlighted the non-transparency which taints recruitment and recommended that regulations and principles be applied to Community personnel. That is all well and good, but it should also be the case for the staff of the European Parliament. The fact is, we have heard of many instances of irregularities, of non-observance of the Community Charter of Basic Social Rights for Workers within the European Parliament, especially in sub-contracting firms. There have, for example, been irregularities as gross as paying night watchmen at day work rates. There is also the problem of social welfare cover according to local law. There are problems with wages. And these are just a few examples. My question is thus as follows: what action do you intend to take in order, in the first place, to make an inventory of all these irregularities and, more especially, of course, to put an end to them?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, never before in history were humanitarian rights so well developed. Never before have there been so many international treaties ratified by so many states. Despite this, human rights are still being systematically violated on a large scale. This also applies to children’s rights. Nearly all countries have now ratified the treaty. Although good progress has been made in certain areas, other forms of abuse against children are on the increase. Over the past decade, the number of children on the streets has grown at an alarming rate. Commercial sexual exploitation of children has become more international and more organised. Children are more than ever the victim of wars. It is estimated that since 1987, two million children have been killed in armed conflict. Six million have been maimed for life. Nearly 30 million are currently on the run from war and violence. Treaties on their own do not suffice. They also need to be implemented. More mechanisms should therefore come into place in order to actually enforce these rights, more monitoring bodies to ensure that they are observed and more pressure tools for sentencing perpetrators. We have already mentioned one of the cruellest forms of child abuse: child soldiers. In fact, over the past two years, 300,000 children under the age of 18 have fought in conflicts all over the world, many of whom were recruited under duress. Invariably, greater numbers of children than adults are killed due to a lack of experience and training. Drafting in child soldiers not only threatens to lead to a criminalisation of society, it also turns all children into potential targets. Mr President, we need more than fine-sounding declarations of intent. As Parliament, we need to advocate the introduction of a minimum age of 18 for recruitment and taking part in armed conflict. Presenting a united front on this, linking all European Member States without exception, will be more than a symbolic step in the direction of a more child-friendly society.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you can see from the reports on employment policies in the Member States, there is a high level of non-compliance with the guidelines on employment, and unemployment is still very high – particularly long-term unemployment – and this affects young people and women most of all. This proves that what is essential, apart from employment guidelines, are changes to economic/financial and monetary policies. The main barrier to the creation of good quality jobs with associated rights is the existence of a Stability Pact which has criteria for nominal convergence that impose restrictions on public investment and influence economic and social policies. What is needed, then, is a change in these policies, so that the priority becomes to establish clear objectives and produce efficient instruments for the creation of lasting jobs with associated rights, and to achieve a significant corresponding reduction in unemployment. I hope, then, that Parliament will adopt the proposals leading towards this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I understand that at the beginning of today's sitting a point was raised about the travel office and the fact that the current staff are to make way for a new company. I would like to make it clear that the Quaestors were not consulted about this change. They should have been, and an undertaking was given that they would be before a tender was awarded, but they were not consulted. I have managed to speak only to Mary Banotti so far, but I can assure you that we will take this matter up. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, I note that I was not really given an answer to the question asked because it was of a hypothetical and speculative nature. At the same time, it is, anyway, surely the case that those who think in political terms must always think of different possible scenarios. We are not, moreover, concerned here with the distant future but with something that will take place quite soon and that will have a major effect on the development of Europe as a whole. It therefore surprises me that the Commission really is not thinking rather more about alternative courses and reflecting upon what might happen if the Irish people were to vote ‘no’ once again. I am certain that the Commission must be thinking along such lines. I also believe that this is a question of practical importance. If the Irish people vote ‘no’, that cannot be allowed to be decisive for the whole EU. There must be a practical solution. In my question, I pointed out that Finland, Sweden and Austria in actual fact negotiated their way to a practical solution to the problems before these countries were Member States. The same method could no doubt be adopted with the new candidate countries. Might that not after all be a possibility, legally and practically?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, people feel that they are paying for the lamentable situation with regard to the euro. According to yesterday's Financial Times Deutschland, 49% of Germany's population are against the euro. Over 50% do not believe that it will boost the economy or emulate the stability of the Deutschmark. 30% expect a decline in the value of their assets and 67% expect price increases when we switch over to the euro. The euro has certainly not become a job machine or acted as a brake on inflation, which is precisely what was rashly promised to the public earlier on. I am very grateful to you, Mr Duisenberg, that the decline in the euro exchange rate is cited in the ECB report as one reason for the increase in inflation, and that the report at least refers to the increasing inflation rate differential between the euro countries rather than putting all the blame for the euro's weakness on the dollar. Monetary stability in the euro area and the external exchange rate stability of the euro are inextricably linked. It needs to be said just as clearly that the ECB's monetary policy has failed to achieve its own stability targets and that the euro is now even associated with a decline in real income. The responsibility for this is not, however, chiefly attributable to the ECB, whose scope for action is becoming ever more restricted. It is more that the policy of the euro countries has contributed far too little to economic convergence. What is really incomprehensible is that the French proposal to establish an 'economic government' has gone unheeded. The differences in inflation and growth between the individual euro countries, which are in fact increasing, are dangerous and I believe that they should be analysed in great detail in future ECB reports. Uniform interest rates are too restrictive for some euro countries and too expansionary for others. A European monetary policy geared to monetary stability is totally at odds with conflicting national economic, tax and social policies.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I rather suspect that voters outside this House would have some difficulty understanding what is going on here this afternoon and indeed some of us may. I wonder what the public would make of it. Surely, the top and bottom of all this is that the majority of this House wants a sensible, standard remuneration package, salary, pension, reimbursement of expenses where practical on the basis of receipts and vouchers – the same sort of system that most of our voters are subject to in their workplaces. Of course, some will say we do not do an ordinary job of work. We are special. Yes, indeed we are special, we are public servants. I have sat in this House now for three years through innumerable discussions on this issue and we seem to move no further forward. What do we have on the table today? We have an exercise in subterfuge bogged down in a quagmire of procedure, I would hasten to suggest. On the one hand, we are talking about a report – a report that was not a report, merely an advice – voted by one committee. On the other hand, we are talking about some feedback from yourself, Mr President, for which we are very grateful. But some people here do not even want to mention that. Confused? I certainly am. Members have nothing of substance or detail before of them, nothing that they have the right to amend or that they all have the possibility to properly vote on. So, what are we discussing here? Some of us had hoped that we were at the very least talking about a process that would finally lead to a proper report setting out the detail of a proposed statute that would be clear, transparent and that every Member would have the right to amend and vote on and stand accountable to his or her voters and finally, once and for all, to draw a line under the criticism that we are so easily subject to. Instead, we are bogged down in this interminable roundabout of discussion on procedure. But, help is at hand! Let us be clear, there is a very practical paragraph in the joint motion from three parties that would allow a practical process to take off. The very paragraph, of course, that is opposed by majorities within the big groups in this House. That paragraph is tabled individually as an amendment. So, be on notice: if you block that amendment, you block progress, you block this House from getting an open procedure that will lead to a statute and you stop this Parliament becoming worthy of the name of parliament and you will leave our citizens even more bemused and sceptical. I would ask you, Mr President, also to check the procedure under which this question has been brought because I really wonder if it is acceptable procedure within our rules. I would not wish people to become any more confused than we already are. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I agree with Commissioner Verheugen when he says that the most important aspect of this type of case is the welfare of the Romanian children. There are, perhaps, two aspects of this matter that need to be raised: firstly, is Romania adequately protecting its children? Are there any alternative systems? Can the European Commission adopt measures to guarantee improvements in the way these children are treated? Secondly, since Mr Verheugen is a member of a Commission that represents the countries of the European Union, has the Commission adopted measures to ensure that, in the event that international adoptions take place involving citizens of Community countries, guarantees will be provided in the reception countries for Romanian children to be treated appropriately, in accordance with international law, Community law and with the national law of the Member States?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this recommendation invites Parliament to express an opinion in keeping with the Council proposal on technical harmonisation in the automobile sector, by considering it to be an important factor in the development of the global market. The process of harmonisation aims to attain the highest levels of safety and environmental protection and is an important stimulus for quality, with advantages both for industry and for consumers. This recommendation originates from the agreement, concluded in 1958 within the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. This agreement was then broadly amended, and it was extended to States outside the Union. The European Community has thus become part of an amended agreement which now includes Japan. Nevertheless, because of a different certification system, but also for procedural reasons, the United States could not adopt a similar decision. A Parallel Agreement was negotiated to overcome this difficulty, which allows harmonised technical regulations to be adopted, but only unanimously and without the contracting parties being obliged to mutually recognise certificates and permits. In this way, the European Community has taken on an important intermediate function, insofar as it is a contracting party of both of these agreements. The rules laid down by the Parallel Agreement coincide with those in the UNECE agreement, but a specific decision-making procedure is anticipated when a draft regulation is not considered within the framework of the 1958 agreement. In any case, in order to include technical regulations in Community legislation it is still necessary to have a corresponding Commission directive that is adopted by Parliament under the codecision procedure. Parliament’s role is thereby guaranteed and it is anticipated that the Commission will provide Parliament with the draft regulations it wants to implement on a global scale. I will conclude by pointing out that an opinion in keeping with this recommendation would put the European Community in a position to fully support the Parallel Agreement, and confirm its position as a leader in the harmonisation and policies of expanding the markets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, my point of order refers to an issue which I have raised on other occasions in this House and it relates to the fact that African people are continually dying on Spanish coasts. Recently, fifteen Africans died when the Spanish Civil Guard attempted to board their ship off the coasts of the Canary Islands and this week another person has died. We are terribly concerned when Mexicans die in the Arizona desert, but we are completely indifferent to the fact that people looking for work in Europe continually die off our coasts. I believe it is high time that this Parliament and the other European institutions took measures to combat this serious problem which affects all of us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, although I should like to congratulate all the rapporteurs, the two minutes I have prevent me from doing so. I should like to emphasise two aspects: the treatment of cultural minorities, and information and communication in respect of the population. The European Union should be more than a market. It is also a community of citizens and, in addition, a collection of peoples and of smaller and larger cultural communities. The way in which human rights and the rights of minorities are guaranteed still leads to problems in some countries. Everything seems to run more smoothly on paper but, in practice, we see, for example, that, in most countries, the Roma are still really being treated like second-class citizens and that we are still being confronted with third-world situations which are on a par with the worst slums in Africa and in third-world cities. As for the treatment of other minorities, what is written so neatly on paper and in laws appears, once again, not to bear any resemblance to reality. I would, for example, like to refer to the treatment of the Hungarian minority both in Slovakia and in Romania. It is not looking so good in practice as it is on paper. Communication with the population is a major problem because people have substituted a spontaneous enthusiasm for Europe with a more critical stance. If no promises are made or promises remain unfulfilled, this critical attitude will naturally increase. However, I do wonder whether the Commission is pursuing the right policy by not addressing the people in those countries in the language of those people. Is it safe to leave communication entirely to the governments? I have noticed that some governments do not even inform their own MPs, never mind whether the population knows what is being said at the wonderful Infopoint in Warsaw in all Member State languages apart from Polish. I wonder whether we are communicating or simply hiding?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, my name does not seem to be on yesterday's attendance list although I did actually sign in.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Italian Government’s initiative seeks to organise European charter flights for the ‘mass’ expulsion of third-country nationals. The European Council approved it even before receiving Parliament’s opinion. The Commission has announced EUR 30 million: this is an unacceptable way to proceed. It is the very idea of this initiative that must be rejected, however, as hundreds of organisations and thousands of European citizens have rightly demanded. The discriminatory, humiliating and degrading nature of this method of removal is a betrayal of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. More widely, an excessively security-conscious and repressive immigration policy is a threat to migrants, to international relations and to Europe itself. As Kofi Annan recently reminded us, we cannot close our doors and eyes to the world around us. On the contrary, Europe must be open to those who are prepared to risk everything to flee war, poverty and sometimes death. Europe’s need for an ambitious, humane and supportive common policy means instead that migrants should be considered agents of development. For that to be the case, we must abandon ‘fortress Europe’ as a matter of urgency and make sufficient money available for genuine cooperation and mutually advantageous development.

Political group: GUE-NGL