GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Union devotes particular attention to the area of freedom of expression and fundamental rights. Strict observance of these rights is an essential condition of our association agreement. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership cannot be strengthened, therefore, by denying this indispensable and irrevocable clause. Since 1981, Egypt has been under an emergency law which grants extensive powers to the authorities, with a total disregard for human rights. Freedoms are increasingly restricted and subject to the tightest control by the police authorities, which are approved by the judicial authorities. Saad Eddine Ibrahim and his colleagues from the Ibn Khaldoun Centre have been sentenced on the pretext of misuse of funds or of procedures, but the real reason for this is that they are defending democratic freedoms, as Nawal El Saadawi or other human rights activists have done in the past, whilst individual freedoms are also flouted, several homosexuals having been sentenced. We therefore urge the Egyptian Government to put an end to the emergency law to allow all citizens to fully enjoy their lawful rights, to allow sexual orientation, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion to be expressed without being equated to crimes and to allow the freedom of association to be guaranteed so that civil liberties campaigners will no longer be persecuted. We want the State of Egypt, like the other States which have signed the association agreements, to understand that the democratic clause in Article 2 is not a luxury, nor is it an option. We want our friends to know that we are not interfering, not acting out of a notion of superiority, nor a wish to preach, but we are in fact acting out of duty, a duty to denounce and condemn violations of freedom wherever they occur. Human rights are universal and transcend all borders.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Lisbon Process is to create the most dynamic economy in the world. Open coordination has been chosen as the method, and I would like to share my experiences. Sweden has taken part in a number of summits and processes. Ever since the Essen Summit of 1994, there has been talk of the importance of lowering taxes on work and increasing flexibility. In practice, Sweden has done the opposite. Just as with its self-imposed exclusion on the question of the euro, it ignores what has been jointly decided. Instead, the tax burden is increased and entrepreneurs continue to be hampered. In Stockholm, we must make comparisons and learn from each other. So how will that work? It is true that there is talk of increased employment but the truth in Sweden is that, despite three years of economic growth, more people remain outside the workforce than was the case in the early 1990s when we experienced the worst recession since the Second World War. At the same time, real unemployment is hidden by labour market policy and temporary mass training initiatives which do not lead to quality jobs. Furthermore, the statistics include a frightening rate of sick leave. If we add latent job-seekers and the under-employed, unemployment in Sweden covers 17% of the workforce – compared with the official statistic of 5%. The Lisbon Document talked a great deal about knowledge. Despite all the talk of lifelong learning, in terms of knowledge, Sweden risks meltdown as we are failing right from the start. 34% of young people in upper secondary schools lack satisfactory qualifications in mathematics, Swedish and English. At the same time, raising quality within education through independent schools and increased competition is being thwarted – exactly contrary to the intentions in Lisbon. Swedish universities are in crisis. It is true that Sweden has many people with degrees, but it lacks people with real cutting-edge expertise. Therefore, the s are lowering taxes for rich specialists that have been flown in and raising taxes for permanently resident, poorly-educated Swedes. Talking and planning is one thing – especially if you can do it in a meeting room somewhere else in Europe – but implementing and changing requires greater conviction. Power to act is needed now, not least for national structural reforms and increased liberalisation at EU level. Instead of devoting myself to meaningless compromises and fine words, I intend to continue to criticise the European model, which has so far not been able to create many new jobs but instead sentences far too many people to long-term unemployment, social exclusion, poverty and marginalisation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I strongly believe that at least offering Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova prospects of potential long-term membership will encourage the necessary reforms needed in their economies, their systems of governance and human rights and also support those politicians and parties who share our values and aspirations. Will Commissioner Prodi retract his statement - if it is true - that Ukraine is no more European than New Zealand? It was clearly seen by the Ukrainians as a geographical nonsense and a signal to their government that they were much better off making their bed with the Russian bear. Fortunately Russia does not want to join the European Union, but Ukraine does. We should not exclude this possibility, particularly if at the end of next year the Commission sanctions the much weaker case - to my mind - for Turkey's membership. Can the Commission provide more funds to combat illegal immigration and border flows through these countries, irrespective of our disapproval of their governments in office at the moment?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in previous debates here last November and in April of this year I supported the general principles behind the idea of directives on working time and I still do so. Clearly there are significant health and safety issues which can be addressed – not only for the protection of workers but also for the protection of their customers and the general public – and issues of customer health and safety of course are particularly relevant in relation to doctors in training. Like my colleague, Mrs Lambert, I am concerned that this compromise has not gone quite far enough in relation to doctors' hours. There would remain though some workers in some working places where practical issues do not readily lend themselves to the implementation of this type of directive. Coming from Scotland, with one of the largest EU fishing fleets, I would like once again to focus on the problem of fisheries and the defining of working time. I note the compromise concerning sea-fishermen – a maximum of 48 hours of weekly work in a reference period of 12 months and the possibility of derogation after consultation and by agreement. This may be an improvement but I still have some questions to put to the Commission. We have to recognise that there were good reasons for the initial exclusion of the fisheries sector. As regards fishing there is a deep-seated suspicion of Brussels in many respects and a lot of opposition to the whole idea of fishermen being told when to sleep or when to go to sea, given that their working time is governed by uncontrollable factors such as climatic conditions and the movement of shoals of fish. The directive says that work at sea comprises sea fishing and other offshore work. Many fishermen, particularly in Scotland, are organised on a family basis – they are share-fishermen paid only a proportion of their vessel's catch. They are clearly not employees in the sense of the word that we would understand. Is this directive going to affect them or is it not? I have asked the Commission this question previously in committee and in plenary and have not yet received absolute clarification of this point. The Conciliation Committee concluded in the case of those share fishermen who are employees – a statement which seems to me to be contradictory – that it is for Member States to determine the conditions for entitlement to annual leave and payments etc, but there is no explanation as to whether or when a share fisherman is employed. I know for sure that the fishermen that I see around the coast of Scotland can only be defined as self-employed and I stress the need for clarification of this. There are huge differences between a large-scale long-distance fleet where fishermen are employed by companies and sent off for months on end and the smaller- and medium-sized boats, which operate on a family or a cooperative basis. This is an issue about the definition of self-employment or owner operation and I know that the compromise deletes own-account transport operators, clearly and quite properly identifying an exception in that area. I call for a similar exception for share-fishermen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the European Parliament agrees totally with the political assessment of the Commission and of the Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, Günter Verheugen, that a failure to reach agreement on Cyprus could pose a serious obstacle to Turkey’s ambitions to become a member of the European Union. Parliament maintains that the Cyprus question thus amounts to a major stumbling block in Turkey’s path to accession and a political test of its European resolve. Parliament hopes that the Turkish political authorities fully understand its significance. I should like to cite a very important sentence in paragraph 63. ‘[It is] hard to imagine that Turkey could join the Union when it refuses to recognise a Union Member State, has military forces occupying part of that state’s territory, is boycotting that state’s ships, and is barring that state from its airspace.’ I will now speak in English because the Irish presidency is not paying attention to what has been said. What I was saying concerning paragraph 63 is that we find it very peculiar that Turkey could be a member of the European Union in a situation where it is partly occupying an EU Member State. This is a question about the EU's credibility in the quest for peace. We cannot tolerate the European Parliament accepting a country that is occupying a Member State of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Investment Bank’s activities are becoming ever more important, especially now that Eastern and Western Europe are to draw closer to each other. Bringing new countries from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area into the EU, like developing cooperation with other neighbouring countries, is not just a question of reaching good agreements. It is at least as much a question of in actual fact developing these countries’ societies and economies so that they can manage the new environment they are to be integrated into. It is therefore a serious matter that it is now so unclear how much confidence can be placed in the Bank. The content and consequences of the EIB’s programmes must be developed in such a way that loans vigorously support the European Union’s political objectives. The rapporteur and the Committee on Budgets particularly point out that the Bank’s projects must support important objectives, including the European Parliament’s decisions concerning, for example, the fight against poverty, the defence of democracy and human rights and the protection of the environment. Clearly, the European Union must continue to back the EIB and guarantee its loans, especially against political risks. We take a favourable view of the desire that now exists to carry out assessments in such a way that differentiation takes place on the basis of how risks and financing opportunities appear in different parts of the world. It is also important, however, not only to make improvements to the programmes themselves. Instead, there must also be improved public scrutiny of the Bank’s activities. For example, it is important that the Bank should work with clear, assessable objectives so that we might in actual fact ensure that the resources are used efficiently. This is also important in order for us to be able to learn from the results of the Bank’s activities and use our analyses to develop activities in the future. Many of my colleagues have spoken of the importance of openness. I shall just touch briefly upon this issue. All EU institutions, like the EIB, must now subject themselves to more stringent monitoring and supervision. That is why we are now demanding increased openness. It ought to be obvious that both OLAF and the Court of Auditors should have access to all documents which are required for the purposes of good supervision. That is the significance of the important amendment No 5, and something which I understand that the Bank has now in fact begun to consider agreeing to.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Angola is still suffering from war, destruction and the senseless, shocking loss of human lives. Angola has everything it takes to be a great, rich, developed country and a factor for stability and progress in south-western Africa, but it has been squandering its resources and energies in a conflict which seems to go on forever. We condemn the use of war, and we condemn most especially inhuman attacks on defenceless civilians, women and children, attacks that nothing can justify. Several times over the years this Parliament has pronounced on Angola and has criticised attitudes and behaviour. We recall these deliberations, which we uphold and support and which the compromise resolution upholds, recalls and supports. Just as we remember the United Nations deliberations on the conflict and we do not deny that the various sides have different responsibilities. In our view, however, at this precise moment when a little window of hope is opened with declarations from the main players responsible and initiatives in civil society for peace, our role is to encourage this movement. We must tell the people of Angola and the political leaders that the international community is willing to collaborate in the search for peace. There is no military solution to this conflict. The General Affairs Council said so at its meeting on 11 June in Luxembourg. Today it is the European Parliament’s turn to affirm it on behalf of the peoples of Europe. We are pleased with the compromise text that it has been possible to draw up and we shall vote against the proposals that may disfigure it, not because we disagree with the content of several of them, but because what is expected of us today are words of encouragement and not of recrimination.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to pick up on what Mr Harbour said. First, my dear Mr Harbour, you are one of those who sets great store by the Treaty and if you read the Treaty, you will see that we have 12 regular plenary sessions a year and that, if necessary, we can hold additional plenary sessions in Brussels. If we were to take out these six days in the autumn, we would have time for committees, time for week-long surgeries and all the rest, instead of which we could use the time here really profitably. Secondly, this afternoon's agenda should have included a topical and urgent debate, for example on the coup in Côte d'Ivoire. Today we were told this would be discussed on 9 October. In other words, the Conference of Presidents decided that this urgent matter should be debated on 9 October, i.e. in a fortnight's time, instead of this afternoon, when it could have been slotted in without further ado. Thirdly, there was no Question Time this week, either to the Council or to the Commission. That, as I said earlier, is a fundamental parliamentary right and the fact that there was no Question Time was a violation of the Rules of Procedure. My dear Mr Harbour, I am very proud of Question Time; it is an achievement which mirrors a long parliamentary tradition in Great Britain.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at the recent World Food Summit held in Rome, 182 nations renewed their commitment to putting an end to the tragedy of hunger in the world, in which there are still 800 million people who are malnourished. Sadly, five years on from the first summit in 1996, we have to acknowledge that we have clearly failed in our aim of halving this figure by 2015. It is imperative that this discrepancy between promises and reality is overcome. The need to combat this tragedy is also reinforced by the thought that hunger is both a cause and an effect of poverty. A starving man is not a free man: he is a desperate man and can easily be persuaded to take part in desperate actions such as conflicts, international crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal immigration and terrorism. There is no doubt that the western world needs to pay much greater attention to this, and the commitment by the industrialised countries to donate 0.7% of their gross domestic product is more relevant now than ever. It was John F. Kennedy who said that no one can be considered rich if their neighbours are poor. That is why we need practical action and projects. We have to act immediately to prevent a further 2 billion people joining the 4 billion who are currently cut off from wealth, as the demographic studies forecast. Good governance in these developing countries is, however, an essential prerequisite if the cooperation which is vital for the achievement of the objectives we have set is to be strengthened. Access to information, as the Italian Prime Minister, Mr Berlusconi, has proposed, rather than failure to deliver on undertakings, as Mr Rod has observed, and the new model of digital state organisation to combat corruption and increase efficiency would certainly make any use of development aid more transparent. Another matter that urgently needs addressing through a conference of FAO countries is that of the proper operation of the agency itself. The way it works and is managed needs to be reformed and rationalised in order to improve its transparency and efficiency and to achieve more suitable actions and results. At Johannesburg, I will have the opportunity, together with the delegation from the European Parliament, to see whether the European Union will really be able to give – and make others give – tangible political commitments with precise deadlines, the achievement of which will have to be based on effective partnership.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think it is important that in any policy relating to a larger Europe and partnership that we remember the importance of Ukraine as a country that certainly has historical, cultural and also economic ties to Europe. At the same time we have to remember, and remind the Ukrainian administration, that real partnership can only be developed through democracy, the rule of law and a respect for civil and human rights. Ukraine really still has much to do in these areas. For example, freedom of speech and the independent media are continually under threat in Ukraine and the rule of law does not function in any satisfactory way. Poor prison conditions, random arrests, and excessively long pre-trial detentions are still serious problems. The resolution lists many concrete defects and violations of human and civil rights, which have to be put right for partnership to really develop. The EU must encourage Ukraine to strive for better government and democracy. One instrument for this is the TACIS Democracy Programme, which should be used to strengthen the independent media, so vital for the creation of civil society, and democratic institutions. The Council and the Commission should monitor developments in Ukraine carefully and play an active and transparent role in organising the presidential elections in October, as well as other matters.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall say ‘Well done’ to Mr Bourlanges! Well done, for I believe that, through your work, you have highlighted what will become one of the important subjects of the Convention. Well done too for succeeding in incorporating the question of terminology in your report. I believe that when Europeans try to explain to Europeans what the European Parliament does, it is best to use simple words. You urge us to do this. I imagine that the Convention will support this plan and this will be a step forward. You tell us you are aiming to simplify. Where Europe is concerned, I am wary of simplification, because I have learnt that complexity is not necessarily synonymous with complication and that we sometimes make things more complex when we seek to simplify them. There is a point on which your report is absolutely essential in relation to the powers of the European Union, however; that is the question of the consequences of codecision on comitology. You call for Article 202 to be reformed. Both dimensions of Article 202 are absolutely essential: defining mandates and scrutinising their execution. With regard to powers, it is important for the powers of the Council and those of the European Parliament to be parallel. If the Council gives up some of its powers, we could give some up as well, and vice versa. That said, we must also take account of what is really happening, and I fear that the work that we have done in relation to your report does not bring us totally into line with what is really happening in terms of the changes to European legislation. You quite rightly referred to the mechanisms which are being established in connection to the Lamfalussy procedure, which we doubt the Council and the Commission would wish to extend to other areas, hence the importance of obtaining a genuine call-back procedure for Parliament. In addition, you also mentioned the question of coordination policies. I would like to touch upon one last aspect, which is self-regulation by market operators, and draw the attention of Members to a major risk that we are facing, namely of focusing our work and our deliberations on the legislative procedure, whereas in reality, legislation in Europe will, in the future, be drawn up using self-regulation, coordination and comitology.

Political group: PSE