GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, the importance of lifelong learning in creating a learning society is fundamental to meet the challenges of economic and social change and sustainable development that we face today. In the light of recent job losses across Europe, retraining and education will be even more important in helping to adapt the skills of workers to enable them to find new jobs. For this to be effective sufficient resources have to be made available. Lifelong learning has a much wider significance than that: it is also important for personal fulfilment and as a means of developing responsible citizenship, encouraging people to play a full part in their community. So it can help break the cycle of poverty and unemployment. Through informal and non-credited learning it can also be a very effective way of involving both adults and young people in the most disadvantaged areas, who are those most threatened by social exclusion and poverty but who often have very negative attitudes towards formal education and so are least likely to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the Commission's White Paper 'Teaching and Learning – Towards the learning society' missed the opportunity to produce a comprehensive report, including examples of good practice, which would have been of great value to all those working in the field. It does not contain enough information on how effective or cost-effective various actions were and there is little information on what was done to target specific groups such as women, elderly workers, immigrants, families in disadvantaged areas, the long-term unemployed and disabled people. So whilst there are universities, colleges and community groups as well as regional and local governments across the EU carrying out excellent and pioneering work in this field, this report does not really reflect that. Therefore I agree with the rapporteur that even as an interim report, on what was after all an ambitious White Paper, this is a disappointing summary of progress on this most important issue. I hope future reports will be more positive and can be useful tools in themselves for those working in education.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we propose to reintroduce, from the original Commission text, the words 'after consultation of the social partners' in the first sentence.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, since the agreement is being submitted to the Court of Justice, it seems to me a better idea to refrain from putting this report to the vote now, and first await the response of the Court. I hope that the Commission and the Council agree. I propose the following, therefore: rather than putting the report to the vote now, refer it back to committee in anticipation of the opinion of the Court of Justice.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, farming is an economic activity that depends on biological processes and which accounts for the use of much of the Community’s natural resources. For this reason, it must play a double-edged and central role in the conservation of biodiversity: first, by consolidating farming practices that are compatible with the environment and, secondly, by ensuring the survival of viable farms and systems of production throughout the territory of the European Union. Both the relentless intensification of farming and the fact that farmers are leaving the industry, with the consequent decline of rural areas, are having a devastating effect on biodiversity. A Community strategy for biodiversity must guarantee a method of farming that is more sustainable, in the broadest sense of the word, and which, in addition to the biological aspects, incorporates economic and social requirements and, ultimately, the survival of the rural world. Furthermore, maintaining this sustainable form of farming is a prerequisite for the European agricultural model, which is based on the protection of multifunctionality in agriculture, as the Council and the European Parliament have reiterated in numerous resolutions. The CAP is a useful instrument for biodiversity, as are the resolutions of the Earth Summit adopted at the Helsinki and Gothenburg Councils. On this basis it would be a mistake to confine the protection of biodiversity within the narrow limits of the CAP's second pillar and, more specifically, within agri-environmental programmes – designed to encourage the extensification of organic farming, the preservation of native species, the protection of natural habitats, etc. – for two reasons: firstly, because the second pillar of the CAP accounts for only 10% of the agricultural budget and, secondly, because although agri-environmental programmes encompass 20% of the EU's farmland, they have been implemented very unevenly and these days they are restricted almost entirely to the least productive areas of five Member States. This state of affairs is aggravated by the fact that there has been insufficient insistence upon environmental protection requirements in respect of market aid, and this has generally resulted in the setting of excessively low standards. Therefore, we should extend eco-conditionality and encourage more active use of the agricultural market policy mechanisms designed to protect the environment and biodiversity. We must support these requirements in our legislation on food quality, plant-health products, seeds and genetic resources. It is crucial that we strengthen the financial element of the CAP’s second pillar as well as making a distinction between its measures for socio-rural development and its agri-environmental measures. We are facing a major challenge, which is to consolidate Community agricultural policies and to draw them together so that they work in parallel to preserve biodiversity.

Political group: PPE-DE
I too like many colleagues was interested in the response of many people of Pakistani origin and background to this coup – people who are themselves involved in democratic politics and concerned about good democratic practice. They were not appalled. So that reaction adds weight to our awareness of much that was wrong under the previous regime, for example the lack of protection for the rights of religious minorities and the increasing abuse of the blasphemy law which was introduced after the military take-over in 1958. Under the previous regime we also saw a growing abuse of human rights, of people such as the Sindhi. We look at what will be happening to political prisoners under this regime as a clear indicator of its intentions. I am also concerned at reports that the military were motivated by the feeling that the Sharif government was not doing enough to protect and maintain the Federation of Pakistan. I find that particularly worrying when I remember its developing nuclear capability. We believe that the conduct of the trial of the former prime minister will also be a clear sign as to the military's good intentions to return to, or rather not to return but to introduce good democratic government to Pakistan.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the job of the European Ombudsman was established in the Maastricht Treaty at the same time as the concept of citizenship of the Union was introduced. The Ombudsman looks after the public interest in the direction of the administration. The Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, works, by virtue of his job description, for the people and in order for good administration to take root in the Union. We all know that there is still much to do. It is, however, vitally important to adopt good, open and effective administrative practice, so that the European Union will gain the support and confidence of its citizens more satisfactorily than it does at present. The Ombudsman’s report discussed this time regards the secrecy attached to the Commission’s recruitment procedure. The report contains recommendations that the Commission has already begun to implement. The rapporteur, Herbert Bösch, from the Committee on Petitions, states in the explanatory statement in his report that the principles that led to the Ombudsman’s recommendations proved to be the same as those adhered to by the European Parliament: correctness, transparency and the desire to create confidence. And that is how it should be. Parliament is a body elected directly by the people. Its job is legislation and to monitor the Union’s bureaucratic machine on behalf of the public. Parliament and the Ombudsman must therefore work for the same causes. The report by the Committee on Petitions states that the Committee approves the special report being discussed and, in particular, the point which states the desire to improve the impression the public gets of the institutions from our competitions procedures. The most important of Mr Söderman’s proposals is the right of applicants to have access to their corrected examination papers afterwards. The Committee says that the Commission has informed the Ombudsman it was implementing this recommendation as from the start of July 2000. In addition, the report urges all the institutions and bodies of the European Communities to allow applicants to have access to their corrected examination papers in future recruitment competitions, if they so request. My colleague, Mr Bösch, has already briefly presented here the amendments to the report he tabled. I hope they will be supported in Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is clear that improving the quality of legislation is essential to the effective functioning of the internal market and to increasing the competitivity of the European economy. So we all welcome the SLIM initiative, but we must all share the rapporteur's reservations about how it has worked so far. There are surprisingly few areas which have been subject to the SLIM process and it is not always clear why those particular areas have been selected. We need, without a doubt, a fast-track procedure to turn SLIM opinions into legislative proposals, because it all seems to take rather a long time. So we welcome the proposal to set up a special group within the Advisory Committee and we welcome the rapporteur's suggestion that it should have more resources. Clearly we also need greater synergy between the different Commission initiatives for improving legislation. We sometimes think that the different parts are operating in isolation. And, of course, we need greater cooperation between Member States and to overview best practice and seek to repeat best practice elsewhere. And finally, it is crucial to ensure maximum involvement of the users of this legislation, particularly businesses, because they know best how this legislation affects them. However, having said that, you could quite conceivably produce wonderful, simple legislation, yet it could be completely destroyed by the way that Member States implement it and enforce it. We must understand that there are three stages of legislation – formulation, implementation, including transposition, and enforcement – and we have to see the process as a whole. We often find the greatest problem is not the original legislation but how it has been transposed by Member States and the speed at which they have transposed it, how they have implemented it and how they have enforced it. I am often quite surprised by how relatively simple ideas are turned into the most complex nightmares as we go through that process. As part of this on-going determination by the Commission to simplify legislation, I would like to see much greater cooperation between Member States and the Commission about the whole life of legislation and, particularly, involvement with the people who have prime responsibility for enforcing the legislation, who are often local and regional actors. So we must consider the whole process when we draft the original legislation. In some ways, you could argue, we should start at the end and look at how we enforce it and then work backwards as a way of getting simpler legislation. But the SLIM process ought to go much further. We need a rolling programme which will cover all legislation and look at simplifying, consolidating, re-casting, sometimes repealing legislation. Sometimes we may need to go for the status quo, but we need a more dynamic process than we have had so far.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like those fellow Members who have spoken before me, I approve the principle of competition policy reform proposed by the Commission. I welcome decentralisation. The present centralised method, which means that there is a backlog of cases, is inevitably somewhat arbitrary. It cannot guarantee legal certainty. However, I believe that reform will inevitably lead to an extremely interesting raising of the stakes as regards the clarification and development of the rules. And it is on that point that I differ somewhat. Article 3 is clearly vital. It establishes the principle that Community law overrides national law in cases where practices are likely to affect trade between Member States. But this principle is not acceptable without some clarification. For example, in the case of services of general interest or other services that are essential for the Member States and the regions, I am convinced that there is a need for derogating provisions. At the very least, the Commission should, as proposed by the Economic and Social Committee, present an interpretative communication on this subject. Article 10 is another important article. It rightly provides that the Commission can make observations to the Member States for reasons of Community public interest. Some clarification is essential here too. Jonathan Evans highlights the example of major investments. Services of general interest also need to be mentioned in this particular respect. Two final remarks. The rapporteur is right to stress that it is contradictory to replace prior notification by a register. I think that we should do away with the register. He is right to call for convergence in national law. That is the heart of the problem. It supposes that other countries’ cultures are respected and that a certain balance is achieved between competition, social and environmental standards, including standards for general interest services. So take a look at the Langen report and other reports.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am grateful for the Council’s oral, and also written, reply. Their efficiency has been truly remarkable. I will save a few seconds because I wanted to propose to the Council that we continue the debate at the next meeting of the Committee on Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs. Then we will have the opportunity to comment on these replies and to express our concerns to the Commission as well. Personally, I am pleased with some of the replies, for example, in relation to issues as sensitive as Schengen and the Europol Convention, which we hope will be reviewed, and I am pleased with the words of the Minister for Justice with regard to trying to bring them under the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities. I also hope that the same is done in relation to parliamentary control. Representatives of the Council, within the next month we are going to table a motion for a resolution in this Parliament. I am sure that, with the willingness that you have shown today, the first thing you will do, in this new climate of understanding between us, will be to take account of the motion for a resolution which we will submit to you. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it is no secret that neither my group, on the whole, nor myself, played a part in electing you two and a half years ago. The reason for this is that, as far as we are concerned, for democracy to function properly, the pluralism characterising our societies must be properly expressed. I am, however, speaking completely from the heart when I say that both my group and myself truly appreciate and have a great deal of respect for your Presidency. You have given us proof of your impartiality, your respect for all political sensibilities, even minority opinions, and your ability to avoid political discrimination. This has not always been the case in this Parliament. Your attitude in this regard is worthy of a special mention. You have also been able to adopt difficult positions, for which you deserve credit, when the fundamental values upon which the European Union is founded have been called into question. A great deal of courage was required to adopt such positions, which you proved to have. Although, generally speaking, we have not always supported your public statements, because they put forward the majority view of Parliament, which, unfortunately, on too many occasions is so different from our own, you have nevertheless been able to give a dignified image of Parliament. One of the highlights of your Presidency has to be the outstanding Sakharov prize ceremony that you so wanted and that you were able to expand on through your wise words in your speech at the Laeken European Council. For all of this, and for the excellent degree of cooperation between us, thank you very much! (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Jackson, because, although I was not here when the resolution was debated, she accepted four of the five amendments we tabled. Secondly, we must correct recital C of the motion for a resolution we tabled, because this recital states that 83 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol but – as the Commissioner so rightly said – at the beginning of October, 95 countries had ratified it, which equates to 37.1% of CO2 emissions. I believe we are going to repeat ourselves; I believe we all agree that some matters should take priority – as the Commissioner said – succeeding in persuading Russia, by means of all the necessary diplomatic steps and pressure, to sign the Protocol would mean exceeding 55% of emissions, which would enable us to consider the Kyoto Protocol implemented. I must say that, sadly, my country is no example when it comes to reducing emissions, but rather the opposite. We need to put pressure on the various countries so that they continue to fulfil the commitments we have all undertaken, and there is no doubt that renewable energies will play a very important part in this direction we are taking, in addition to transport, despite the poor result achieved in Johannesburg with regard to renewable energies. The need to instigate a debate in New Delhi on objectives beyond 2012, on means and mechanisms for sanctions and on conflict-resolution mechanisms, could be of great importance for the summit. Mr President, I shall end by referring to the role of the Members of the European Parliament in these summits which – as the Commissioner so rightly said – should be substantial, but not because we want to be present in every single discussion, but because I believe we can be of help to the Commission and to those who are determined that the Kyoto Protocol should become reality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has, in my view, produced a workable proposal. Let us hope that the Council follows Parliament's example, takes a decision and does not delay the directive. Parliament should accept this proposal as a basis for a decision and extend the directive to environmental damage caused by nuclear activities. The directive is important in my view because it will make the polluter pays principle a European principle that can be asserted in practice and because it will strengthen the European model of an environmental and social market economy. Mrs Flemming and I tabled 35 amendments on behalf of the Austrian contingent. Of these, 11 were accepted verbatim and 7 have been incorporated in the compromise amendments. In my opinion, the following five points are particularly positive and deserve to be mentioned: firstly, the directive will apply to all those activities that are listed in Annex I and which are now described more clearly thanks to our amendment. Secondly, liability is precluded for normal operations that have been approved by the authorities and for emissions or activities that are not regarded as harmful based on current scientific knowledge. This provides legal certainty. Thirdly, the principle of shared liability has been accepted instead of liability based on solidarity, which means that the costs will be split in cases where there are several polluters. Fourthly, the directive seeks to have environmental damage made good and for that reason the provisions on compensation for interim losses have been deleted. Fifthly, the committee is in favour of voluntary financial security measures and of capping liability and is against compulsory insurance. This also represents a balance between different interests.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Basque citizens should take note of the fact that Mr Ortuondo cares more for ETA prisoners than for the victims of terrorism. Mr President, Commissioner, we are dealing with the new annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union which, owing to the method used for its production – a different political group every year – makes it impossible for the final result to reflect a consensus – which furthermore is necessary – of all the groups in this House. This would be my first critical comment with a view to future reports. Mr Sylla – whom I respect and whom I thank personally – has made considerable efforts to ensure that the European Union’s anti-terrorist policy is well-considered and supported by this Parliament. I would like to expressly state, however – and in this regard I do disagree with his explanatory statement – that it is only the victims of terrorism who really suffer torture and all types of suffering, and not the ETA terrorists, who use the strategy of accusations of torture to try to weaken the rule of law. This is why in paragraph 12 we called for a European instrument for compensating victims which, let us hope, will be reflected in the 2004 budgets. Nevertheless, there are other issues which prevent an entirely positive assessment of it. One of them is its proposal on active euthanasia, which clashes head-on with a decision of the European Council of 26 March 2002, or the chapter relating to immigration and asylum, which confuses economic immigration with asylum seekers – an issue which has already been overcome by the Commission and also within our Parliamentary debate – or the request for equivalence between marriage and homosexual partnerships, and it also proposes that homosexual partnerships be allowed to adopt children, something which goes further than the logical non-discrimination against any person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. We can also talk about the proposal that resident third-country nationals who have been in European territory for more than three years should participate in municipal and even European elections, which would mean removing the link between European citizenship and nationality, thereby depriving it of any content. Something else which I consider to be a serious error is the very negative reference made to cooperation with the United States on an issue which, apart from anything else, does not correspond to the year dealt with by the report, that of the communication of passenger data to the United States authorities, which is currently at the negotiation stage and subject to open debate in this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE