GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, my high opinion of the rapporteurs, Mr Tsatsos and Mr Gil-Robles, does not prevent me from wishing that their evaluation had been perhaps a little less wordy and, to compensate, more incisive. They might have laid greater emphasis on our satisfaction with the draft Constitution for Europe, and at the same time warned the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) of the responsibility it will assume if it tries to replace the Convention’s political consensus with a different, governmental consensus. We all share in that responsibility, in that risk, especially those who, in accordance with the will of the citizens, cannot accept an enlarged Europe lacking a common legislature, or one strictly governed by an obsolete Treaty of Nice. Numerous representatives of the 28 Member States spent 16 months considering all the options in their quest for a reasonable consensus. I do not believe, Mr President, that European diplomats can do any better in little more than two months. In any case, those diplomats were involved at every stage in finding solutions on behalf of their Member States, which makes them partly responsible for the results achieved in the Convention. In the same way, I do not believe that any amount of political modesty can hide our pride in affirming clearly that, at the end of the European Convention, the highest honours went to the European Parliament. Nor can any nationalist neuroses make us forget how valuable European unity is for governing Europeans, and, of course, for curbing the supremacy – and very often the stupidity – of other parts of the world. Our unity has thus become an essential tool in the service of peace. No delusions of grandeur or mediocrity can jeopardise the challenging mission which is Europe’s destiny today. The text submitted to the IGC is a broad and profound compromise. It may rouse the whole gamut of emotions, but it will not be denied its role as the precursor of a new Europe, based on democracy, human rights, equality and European solidarity. That fact alone gives us the mettle to champion it, and to convince the citizens to confer on it the title ‘Constitution for Europe’.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are in all nine directives on equal treatment, but no measures to improve their implementation. That is why we need data and statistics to facilitate comparative assessments based on which solutions can be identified. A simple statement that men and women are equal before the law is not enough. The Commission's priority theme for 2001 was equal pay. However, the report once again reminds us that women's pay for the same or equivalent work continues to average only 76% of men's pay. The Joint Report on Employment for 2001 states that the Member States have taken only limited measures to reduce this pay differential, and the Commission needs to play an active role here, especially with the prospect of enlargement. The committee is actively working on the priority themes for 2002 and 2003 – the reconciliation of work and family life and the participation of women in decision-making processes. The provisions in force at present will have to be better adapted to current requirements. If women, and men too, opt for family life and to have children, that should not prevent them from participating in working life. Women need to be involved in decision-making processes at all levels. The only way to make credible progress with a policy for both sexes is by means of mutual cooperation based on equal opportunities. Commissioner, some good projects have been worked out by women's organisations, but those organisations need more information on access to the Commission's system of financing and aid. The objective should be to ensure that as many stakeholders as possible can participate in the relevant programmes. After all, appropriations are made available every year to support projects relating to women, for example in the Structural Funds and in particular in the 2000-2006 action programme. However, the procedures involved need to be rationalised and simplified, because they are too complicated, both at Community and at national level. I would like to conclude by very sincerely thanking Mrs Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou for her balanced report. Unfortunately, the limited time we have available means that I can only touch on a few points.

Political group: PPE-DE
As the report acknowledges, important international agreements already exist to protect children, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the European Council Convention on Cyber-Crime. The European Union has the task of complementing and extending this work, bearing in mind the gravity of the situation that still exists in this field. It is not enough, however, to establish legal frameworks. We must also adopt fundamental political measures, which address the causes. The European Commission’s proposal offers very little analysis of the causes of the sexual exploitation of children and the consequences of such behaviour and back-pedals significantly on the measures that are proposed and an actual definition of child pornography. During the debate on the proposal in the Committee on Women’s Rights, we tabled various amendments, thereby making a positive contribution to improving the initial positions. Not all of our amendments were adopted, but the report makes a significant improvement on the Commission’s proposals in various ways. It falls short, however, of what we would like to see in this field, specifically with regard to the concept of child pornography and to the penalties that could be imposed for such activity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The report demonstrates the need for a common registration system for sheep and goats, using a database and similar to the systems that exist for cattle farming and pig farming. A majority of the European Parliament wishes, however, to make an important distinction where this system is concerned, namely in the way it is funded. The existing systems are funded from fees, whereas the desire is to fund the new system concerning sheep and goats from Community funds. For this reason, I have voted against the report as a whole. At a stage when the EU faces the demand for reform of the common agricultural policy, it is unfortunate that Parliament wishes to impose further costs upon the common EU budget. Recitals 5b and 17a, in particular, make it clear that the costs should be met by the EU. Recital 5b reads: ‘The entire cost of introducing the new electronic identification system should be met from the Community budget since this is a food safety and control measure affecting the whole production chain and since it is the producers who will have to put into operation and manage the system’. – Blokland report (A5-0391/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to address the timetable issue, and do so from the same angle as did the previous speaker. I do not think, Commissioner, that you can in fact afford to wait until 2006. You cannot do so in view of the revelation of two billion euros' worth of fraud and irregularities, and in view of the challenges, some of them financial, with which eastward enlargement is going to face both you and us. I do think that speed really is of the essence here, and, indeed, you must not wait. You know that as well as we do, you know our report and you know about the proposals that have been made, which have stated that you are well able to tackle an initial, introductory stage without amending the Treaty establishing the European Community. Both the Council of Experts, which made proposals in 1999 towards reform of the Commission, and also the latest annual report of the committee overseeing OLAF have mapped out these two stages for you. In view of this pressure, which really is needed, I ask you: why do you still hesitate? Why are you again putting it off, until 2006? Why are you so hesitant, why do you not take the plunge, as we urged, most recently in the Bösch report?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the importance of the package as a whole is clear, both for a major European industry and for its customers and users. But are we moving fast enough to keep up with a changing market? I would like to congratulate colleagues, especially the PPE-ED team, for getting to this point where much of Parliament's position has been taken on board in the Council text. I particularly welcome progress on Article 4 of the framework directive so that the principle of appeals against NRA decisions on the substance of an issue, not just on whether procedure has been followed correctly, has been accepted. This gives some comfort to operators and provides a more balanced situation. I also welcome moves improving Article 6 of that directive so as to achieve a more even regulatory framework across Member States through the requirement for cooperation and coordination between NRAs and the Commission. Personally, I prefer the voluntary approach to adopting common standards in digital television technology rather than seeking to impose one solution. I say, let the market provide the answer. The package, as now formulated, seems a big improvement on the original proposal but we are still looking for consumers' concern about levels of competition and service to be addressed through faster transition to a true internal market governed by general competition rules.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I congratulate both rapporteurs on their reports, which have received a high degree of consensus. The Ferber report is a very courageous exposition of the present and future needs of Parliament. A European Parliament interested in the new information technologies, a European Parliament aware that its organisation must, as a priority, revolve around the new tasks which the MEPs are obliged to carry out under the Treaty of Amsterdam. This report proposes changes. Changes always meet resistance in institutions and we should therefore be especially grateful that the rapporteur has wished to draw up this report with the support of the , and, we hope, of the other political groups in Parliament. The rapporteur, Mrs Haug, has reached broad areas of compromise in her report, which we hope will be respected in the vote, and which we hope will strengthen Parliament’s commitment with regard to employment, culture, the new Amsterdam policies and, no less importantly, the budgetary obligations and rights. This House voted by a majority for a financial perspective which respected the political balances of Berlin, even when we were all aware of its shortcomings in the face of unexpected external events. Last December, this Parliament voted to maintain the financial perspective and the interinstitutional agreement despite the fact that, at that time, the Council drew out the negotiation to unacceptable limits. Today, the Council, Parliament and the Commission are bound by a signed commitment. This is a very serious commitment. If we have to finance new policies, we have to find new funding. If the Council intends to finance actions in the Balkans at the expense of current external or agricultural policies, it would not only be showing a lack of political vision but it would also be failing in the commitments it has signed up to.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate Mrs Fourtou on her report and to thank her. My group is of the opinion that the Commission communication is a step in the right direction, since it recognises how important the role of complainant is in the exposure of infringements of Community law. The Commission must welcome the citizen as the provider of a service, and must look after citizens’ interests. Only in this way is trust created, and the feeling conveyed that the EU is a Union for its citizens. The citizen must always be shown ways in which he can assert his rights as a citizen of the Union. This must also apply to the Commission even if it turns out that the Commission is for once not the right body to which to turn with a complaint. The citizen must have the feeling that this is what Europe is, and I say Europe because we must remember that many citizens do not make any distinction between the institutions. The citizen must therefore be given an answer. Therefore I particularly welcome the fact that this communication includes this aspect. I would have liked the wording to be more clear, however, in particular by stating that the Commission must in all cases show the complainant an alternative means of recourse to law. Citizens must be dealt with and informed individually and personally. The Commission must inform the complainant immediately and consistently. Here it is also important that the complainant really does have the opportunity to present his complaint to the Commission in person and to explain it in more detail. The good intentions of the communication must now be put into practice and must not be allowed to remain merely a theory on paper. Like the rapporteur, I too am basically of the opinion that the one-year time limit for processing complaints is sufficient. That means, however, that the one-year time limit must be the rule and that the citizen is able to rely on really obtaining an answer within one year. I do not believe the excuse that the Commission does not have enough staff in order to do this to be a valid one. Like Mrs Fourtou, I regret the fact that the communication did not make any connection with the petition procedure. For years the Committee on Petitions has been demanding intensified inter-institutional cooperation. This has already been referred to in the Perry-report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as previous speakers have indicated, allowing this convention to become a powerful and important tool for the European Union is the best way of celebrating it, when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy. We must do everything to ensure that the countries with which we are cooperating honour their obligations under the convention. We know, as a lot of people here have mentioned, that many countries have ratified it. But how many countries are there really which honour their obligations, for example to report on what they have done. We must make sure that the convention is an important tool in relation to the candidate countries. I think that a step forward was taken when children’s rights were specified in the progress report on Romania. As we know, conditions were in that way established for negotiations with Romania. In the statement which most of us are looking forward to and which Commissioner Vitorino mentioned, we must also find out how much the European Union is spending on children under the PHARE and TACIS programmes. Hans van den Broek was promising for a time that we should obtain such a report, but it has not been forthcoming. I look forward to its arriving no later than with the statements. Mrs Gröner mentioned child soldiers. I think that is the most topical of the questions concerning children’s rights. We must support all those who are working for the voluntary protocol, which will begin to be drawn up next year. We must make sure that countries which sanction child soldiers really are not given the same advantages. I am sorry that this Parliament could not have given the Sakharov prize to a woman who has fought against the employment of child soldiers. I think it is particularly important that, not only before but also after the Tampere Summit, we investigate – under the third pillar – how children are treated and ensure that child refugees receive special treatment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, since it started operating in 1995, the Schengen Information System has been used and is used, together with Europol, as a tool to facilitate repression at European level, to manufacture and monitor suspects, to combat resistance movements and disobedience policies and to devastate immigrants arriving in Europe looking for a place in the sun. It has been used with particular enthusiasm every time grass roots resistance movements have been organised against the interests chosen by the European Union, in Nice, in Gothenburg and in Genoa. A month ago, the European Parliament requested a progress report in which the rapporteur revealed the arbitrary nature and unreliability of the personal data recorded. A few days later, the European Union rushed to make this information available to the American services to help them stifle any voice of resistance anywhere in the world and spread a new imperialist war on the pretext of fighting terrorism. And, as if that were not enough, the recent extraordinary European Council of the European Union of the 15 gave the Americans unaccountable access to all European sources and files. The Schengen system, be it the first generation or the second generation which we are debating today, is a constituent element in the mechanism of repression, which is why the grass roots movement is fighting to abolish it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Byrne, when we received the Commission proposal, we were somewhat undecided in committee as to whether we should deal with it at all because, with all due respect, it was very insubstantial. We received a poor quality, inadequate document and considered whether we should return it to sender and ask for a reasonable proposal on the protection of pigs. But it must be said, Mr Busk, that you deserve our warmest congratulations on your work. That includes Mr Maat and Mr Kindermann, who helped with the compromise amendments. Now we have a proper proposal and, once again, Parliament has done a good job. It is also a good thing that we intend to adopt it now because, had we decided otherwise and rejected the proposal, animal protection associations would again have accused farmers of wanting to stonewall, of wanting to put commercial interests first. But that was never our intention; we want to implement animal protection, obviously in tandem with farmers' commercial interests. As Mr Sturdy just said, we obviously need to ensure that the standards which we set at home also apply to products imported into the European Union. In this sense, we have to work towards reasonable external protection which adopts a qualified version of what we describe here as the European way in agriculture and have again implemented in such detail here.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to express my sadness at the fact that my good friend and colleague, Isidoro Sánchez García, is leaving this Parliament, but I am taking the floor for another reason. Yesterday morning two Members, Mr Sturdy, a British MEP, and Mr Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya, a Spanish MEP, took the floor to complain about the problems faced by Community citizens when registering to vote. Like Mr Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya, I come from a tourist region, the Canaries. I have also received numerous complaints from Community citizens with regard to their ability to register. I have acquired the necessary information and the problem is that the Spanish legislation on registration would appear to be very detailed; for example, I have two pages here, which are the ones given out, which mention time limits for complaints, etc., and these are normally very difficult for Community citizens to fill in. It seems that the problem is a lack of communication between the Spanish authorities in general. I therefore join Mr Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya in calling on the European institutions to ensure that Community citizens are registered to vote in this month’s autonomous and regional elections throughout Spanish territory.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of access, control and trade in key mineral resources. The wealth of the country is appealing to its greedy neighbours. All six nations involved in this conflict share responsibility for their illegal actions, as must those in other countries who have helped this profiteering. Is long-term regional instability a price worth paying for short-term theft? Alongside plundering, looting and racketeering by foreign armies, criminal cartels see the DRC as a weak link. The United National panel of experts warns: 'These criminal cartels have ramifications and connections worldwide and they represent the next serious security problem in the region'. I would like to ask the Commissioner what the difference is between Milosevic ethnically cleansing his neighbours and African leaders looting and killing 2.5 million of their Congolese neighbours? When can we see some of these leaders sitting in the dock in The Hague? I see no difference between one sort of killing and another, expect that one is white and the other black. When the final United Nations findings are published, the EU and the UN should respond by considering freezing financial assets of rebel movements and of the leaders of criminal cartels and foreign powers that do not withdraw. We, in the centre right of Parliament, want firm action to prevent the DRC's destruction. The irony is that the wealth stolen from the Congolese could provide the foundations for real long-term regional growth and stability. This needs African leaders to lay down their guns, however. With our historic connections with Africa – particularly during the Belgian Presidency – there is a real opportunity for something to be done very soon.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Ombudsmen, I wish to thank Mr Söderman for being here today and for the work he has done, but also for the happiness he always spreads wherever he goes. I am glad that the Earl of Stockton also mentioned this. We have been able to study the annual report for 2002. It is a fine annual report based on genuine, solid work. The tone is light, reflecting the way we are looking forward. Allow me, however, to say, with Scandinavian directness, that there are no doubt also certain problems in relations between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Ombudsman. One problem is that the Commission has not responded to some of the reports we have written in response to the Ombudsman’s special reports. That is a lacuna we ought to do something about. Another problem we must get to grips with once the Intergovernmental Conference is over is the fact that the proposal for modifying the Ombudsman’s Charter has got somewhat bogged down. The proposal has not moved forward, and we have not obtained the necessary guarantees of the Ombudsman’s access to all documents. We must get our second wind once the Intergovernmental Conference has been concluded. Certainly, the Ombudsman is mentioned in the draft Constitution, but I believe there are many of us who had envisaged a still stronger position for the Ombudsman as an institution. It is something of an irony of fate that we are today discussing the report of the Ombudsman, whose job it is to combat bad administration, when the rest of the House is full of rumours about maladministration and Eurostat. These are not of course reasons for adopting a legal position on Eurostat and on what has happened, but one wonders whether the administrative relations between the various European supervisory bodies are as they should be. How was it possible for the Court of Auditors not to have found errors at Eurostat? How was it possible for OLAF’s communication to the Commission’s Secretary-General to have been so secret that the Commissioners did not receive these communications? Many issues surrounding the flow of information are raised by the Eurostat affair. I believe it would be quite excellent if the new Ombudsman could investigate the relations between the auditing and supervisory bodies and see whether they fulfil the requirements of good administration and adequate transparency. I fully respect the Ombudsman’s independence, but I nonetheless believe this could be an idea that the Ombudsman’s Office might bear in mind in its forthcoming work. I wish to congratulate our newly elected Ombudsman on his work. We know that he has already had a good effect upon our administration.

Political group: ELDR