GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr Hughes, Commissioner, in my view, this directive on the organisation of the working time of drivers is of strategic importance. Many overlook the fact that we are dealing with a road-transport sector which is highly fragmented and under pressure from shippers: there are many small businesses and a few large ones. Those large ones employ staff and the small ones do not. Against the background of liberalisation and cabotage, we are dealing with an international issue which requires international solutions. The price competition is cut-throat, not only in the road-transport sector but also between the different modalities. That was mentioned a moment ago. This results in, inter alia, the subcontracting of both wheels (lorries) and drivers on a large scale. This also leads to cowboy pricing, if I can refer to it that way. One might say – and this is not the first time I am saying this – that the sector is diseased up to a certain point. This also leads to a social rat race and to the evasion of social duties. It affects working times and working conditions and puts pressure on wages. The sector is repeatedly up to new tricks. That would not be the first one. We have already closed the Willy Betz loophole. We now have to face the fact that more drivers are becoming self-employed, and the pseudo self-employed in particular have a role to play. This whole development is detrimental to the sector, the environment (for cheap transport generates more transport), safety and society. For that reason, we believe that this gap must be closed. We have already closed the Willy Betz loophole for Eastern European drivers by means of licensing. In this case, we will close the loopholes not only by involving the pseudo self-employed, but also the self-employed as far as driving times are concerned. In other words, we very much applaud the fact that everyone, both the employed and self-employed, must remain within those 48 hours. In addition, I believe the entire definition of pseudo self-employed to be of major strategic importance, and I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on this very sound approach. The codecision procedure requires our Parliament to form a united front during the negotiations.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Commission reports on equal opportunities are very welcome, but unfortunately, as the rapporteur said earlier, in a practical sense they are not very useful as real measures of success or bases on which to build future programmes, because they are too descriptive and there is not enough analysis of successes and failures. One of the vital requirements for improvements in the position of women is firstly to know exactly what the current situation is. That means we need accurate facts and figures. Then the evaluation reports can use clear criteria and give us an objective analysis of progress or the lack of progress. After all, one of the main criticisms that I receive from grassroots women's organisations is that when applying for financial support from the European Union, they have to make very detailed predictions about their future work and its outcome. Yet in reports like this, we do not have anything like the same detailed information. We need to ensure that information and activities reach women in their own communities, and one effective way of doing that would be by developing and promoting real life case studies which reflect a positive image. I try to look at these reports from the point of view of women in Wales, the constituency I represent, and consider how they are affected by this kind of progress and how they can get access to and use this kind of information. I would support the request of the Committee on Women's Rights in this report for a major study of women in the EU and in the candidate countries as a starting point for future work. A lot is being done by women's organisations, by governments, by the European Parliament and the Commission. We have heard from the Minister of the progress that has been made in France and we can learn a lot from this. Greater involvement by women at all levels of government and in all areas of life is essential for deepening democracy and achieving and maintaining peace. We should be encouraging better dialogue with women everywhere – after all the European Union is seen as a pioneer in terms of equality legislation. The reports are welcome and the progress they outline is a step forward, but until we really begin to exchange good practice and base our work on real statistics, we are not in a position to judge whether we are on the right road to achieving real equality between women and men.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all, congratulations to Michiel van Hulten for his first report. It was a baptism of fire but we have a saying in the Netherlands appropriate for this occasion: in at the deep end and you will swim in no time. Mr van Hulten, I think you deserve a medal for your efforts. There are two points which, in my opinion, deserve special attention on the part of the . Firstly, there is the Commissioners’ individual responsibility. This must be regulated during the IGC. However, we should not like this important issue to end up entirely in the hands of the Council and we have, therefore, submitted an amendment in which we ask whether an interinstitutional agreement could be reached between the Commission and Parliament in order to ensure that we have a kind of fall-back position and are not placing our fate completely in the hands of the Council. Secondly, as already mentioned by my colleague, Mr Mulder, the is of the opinion that the European Parliament should also be investigated by independent experts. This will contribute hugely towards re-establishing the confidence of the European citizens in this institution. We at the European Parliament cannot be a credible counterpart to this reformed Commission as long as we do not search our hearts and put our own House in order as well. Only when all European institutions are reformed will we have the open, democratic and decisive Europe which our citizens now finally deserve.

Political group: ELDR
I would first like to thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his helpful reply. I do not find it fully satisfactory, however, because he has cited the Vienna Convention as the legal basis in this case. The European Union certainly has taken action in similar cases in other parts of the world. It is therefore my understanding that the reply given is not correct. When difficulties concerning human rights have arisen elsewhere between two countries covered by this Convention, the European Union has in fact expressed its concern for human rights. It has interceded and asked for human rights to be respected. I therefore call on you to revise your argument and develop it further. Failure to do so would be construed as prejudice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to compliment Mrs Ghilardotti on her initiative to draw up this report. Even though the Commissioner says that a lot is already happening at European level, I view this report rather as a start and a stimulus for building on the little that is already happening. People may say that there is a lot of expertise, or at least some, but, to be honest, I have to say that I have yet to see much evidence of this. Why are there calls for gender budgeting? It is because a number of items in the budgets of Member States and the European Union are largely only benefiting half of the population. I shall give two examples. It is common knowledge that, when it comes to allocating resources for scientific research into health care, a good deal of research is conducted on half of the population: the males and not the females. A second example is as follows. When resources are given for stimulating democratisation and respect for human rights in developing countries, it frequently happens that these resources are principally used for the benefit of one half of the population and not the other. That is why it is expressly requested that we perhaps start with an analysis of a number of budgetary items that are very gender-sensitive, where something really could be done. If this could be carried out in consultation with the Member States, I think that something positive could result. It is indeed good to have a brochure, but we are actually still only at the stage of developing a mechanism. The development of a mechanism requires the building-up of a great deal of expertise. I give my support to the Commission, and to Mrs Ghilardotti, and I hope that this own-initiative report bears fruit.

Political group: PPE-DE
My heartiest congratulations to Commissioner Busquin on his excellent relationship with Parliament and on the effectiveness and intelligence with which he is preparing to establish the European Research Area and the Sixth Framework Programme. He is working resolutely towards high quality research, towards greater recognition of the value of the research profession and towards freedom of research. The creation of networks of excellence, increasing the mobility of researchers and setting priorities in the neuroscience sector – witness the tragic situation of BSE and Alzheimer's Disease and gene therapy to control as yet incurable diseases – are key parts of the project. I hope that the rapporteur – who has done an excellent job, although the time frames and the deadline for tabling amendments were a question of 'blink and you've missed it' – will, together with Commissioner Busquin, accept one of my requests, which is aimed specifically at avoiding the brain drain from Europe to the United States of America and other competitive countries. I am convinced that it is only by means of economic and social incentives, making the research profession more competitive with that of the United States and combining it, as is the case in Italy, with senior management posts, as we do for judges, that we will, at last, be able to attract young people and to offer them a position with a future and profound respect for their dignity and the role of research scientists in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Parties should be organisations ruled from the bottom up, not from the top down. Real parties do not come into being because the structures of a state have a need for organising a competitive battle during elections, but because there are groups of people who share the same ideas, interests and activities. However, those in favour of a European multicultural state have discovered that there is no European public opinion. Artificially, from the top down, they now want to put forward leaders and structures which attempt to create an opinion of that kind. Four cooperatives of more or less like-minded parties in different Member States have now combined into a European party, and they support that party to some extent with funds from their common groups in this Parliament. In my view, this proposal is mainly a tool for legalising this unprofessional conduct. The doling out of tax money to parties, as well as the imposing of rules on parties by the government adds to the mistrust on the part of the citizens against what they see as a political elite. A centralistically organised European party could well create a situation where, within a joint political movement, member involvement, party democracy and the priorities which differ from Member State to Member State are being compromised. Although I welcome the fact that this proposal does not discriminate on the basis of their political persuasion and their scale, and that gifts from businesses are prohibited, I will be voting against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a very strict budget policy has been adopted in the drafting of next year's budget. As the GNP for the EU Member States has grown faster than the increase in payment appropriations, the amount the EU budget represents in the figure for combined GNP has shrunk to 1.03%. That indicates that next year’s draft budget will not exhibit any special areas of focus. The permitted ceiling in the EU budget is 1.27% of the combined GNP for the Member States. There will consequently be room in the budget for areas of special focus, but the Council and the Commission do not seem to have the political will or the ability to prepare any such areas. Examples of them might be employment or healthy food. The EU political élite no longer even debates the matter of the prevention of unemployment, let alone try to combat it with appropriate policy. Our group has traditionally stressed the importance of preventing unemployment. In most cases unemployment is not the fault of the unemployed person him or herself: that person is at the mercy of the economic situation as it happens to be at any one time. We must have a policy against unemployment. The political élite and EU officials certainly look after their own interests. We are to have an early retirement scheme that will generously reward those who no longer, even through retraining, can be made into functional tyres to go on EU wheels. If there are hundreds of officials no longer needed, that shows just what a bad state EU staff policy is in. The Commission’s ability to implement Parliament’s political decisions is nothing less than wretched. The gap between the budget that has been decided and the budget implemented by the Commission is always much too wide. There are no delays in payment when it comes to issues that are important to the Commission, whereas there often are in issues important to the Parliament. The EU budget is a political document, as it channels money to the EU élite bodies, and now also to the European political parties and for EU propaganda. That is not the way to make a citizen’s Europe. If an illegal war was waged in the bombing of Yugoslavia, assistance for the country’s reconstruction should not be the object of cuts. Let us hope that the CARDS vote does not take the large groups by surprise.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the arbitrary arrest of a Member of the European Parliament and a number of his fellow campaigners in Vientiane has put a severe strain on relations between the European Union and Laos. In the intervening period both the institutions of the European Union and also the Member States concerned have done everything in their power to secure the release of those arrested. In this context I would like to thank both the Commission and also the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, under the leadership of Elmar Brok, and also all those colleagues who have become involved in this issue. Those arrested have now been released again. The Italian government was particularly helpful in that it sent a government representative to Vientiane. This action was ultimately successful. I would also specifically like to thank the Ambassador of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, who made himself available for discussions with us both here and in Brussels and who obviously also had a very positive influence on events. Laos has been a single-party state since 1975, that is to say that it is not a democracy as we understand it. Places where there is no democracy and no freedom of choice usually do not have any constitutional checks either, and Laos is no exception to this. Despite this, the European Union has a cooperation agreement with Laos, and in this framework the European Union is assisting not only the development of that country but is also helping to encourage democracy and constitutionality. The ASEAN delegation accepted only this year that this assistance was indeed useful. There are some very good projects in which the European Union is involved. I would like to make it clear at this point that regardless of the unacceptable behaviour of the powers that be in Laos, we stand by our cooperation agreement and our willingness to provide assistance. I also concede that our concept of democracy and constitutionality does not necessarily have to be accepted by every country on this planet. In fact we need to ask ourselves every now and again if the European Parliament is really in a position to wave its finger at every country in the world and lecture them about democracy and constitutionality. Nevertheless, we do have our principles and they have been infringed in this case. We also intend to make sure that they are respected in future. But we are willing to carry on helping Laos, whose people are amongst the poorest in the world, and to contribute to ensuring that this country has a chance of achieving a degree of prosperity. However, we also want democracy and constitutionality to occupy their rightful place in Laos. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this proposal by Mr Jarzembowski seeks to achieve two things: a uniform approach to what is a global problem, and also a solution to the conflict with the United States. Like most Members in this House, I give this proposal my support, but it is only qualified support. There are serious problems with the way in which it is being achieved and also with the nature of the compromise that is being achieved. I have serious problems with a system which relies on informal negotiations between individual Members of this House, the Council and the Commission. It restrains the role of the elected Members of this House to an undue degree. We must find some fast-track codecision procedure which can be used in these circumstances and fully respects the role of the Members of this House. Secondly, the people who suffer as a result of the noise levels from aircraft and the operation of airports are the people who live immediately in the vicinity, particularly those on flight paths. We will have to judge this proposal on whether or not their lives improve over the next five years. And while we have a proposal here that the Commission will report back to us in five years' time as to whether we are achieving what we set out to achieve, I hope that the Commission will come back here each year and tell us in what direction things are moving – whether the proposals are working, whether things are getting better or indeed in some cases getting worse – so that we can introduce corrective actions, rather than waiting for five years before beginning to take alternative steps. I realise that a number of amendments which are good amendments in their own right are going to be rejected here tomorrow, but the Commission and Council should bear in mind that they are being rejected in order to facilitate this agreement, not because we disagree with them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say a few words on the resolution concerning the right of Kuwaiti women to vote, a situation which is extremely worrying. It touches fundamental human rights. This right is also laid down in the Kuwaiti Constitution, as is stipulated in the resolution and it is, of course, commendable that the Kuwaiti government and parliament have implemented the same. It is, however, unfortunate, how this came about. The bill was not passed for two reasons. Firstly, it was not submitted correctly as the emir did this during recess and secondly, the rank and file did not subscribe to it, so there is also an issue with the rank and file. So the emir submitted the bill during recess. This is why MPs who agreed with the content voted against it out of protest against the procedure. The same was true for fifteen ministers who have voting rights in parliament. The second issue which forms part of the larger picture is mainly an issue to do with the local government officials. They are all men and they have shown little enthusiasm when it comes to women joining them in the local government. This is why the MPs have voted against, often for fear of their own rank and file – there is no party structure but people are elected directly – and for fear of their own positions. Hence my plea, Mr President. If a clause is added to paragraph 4 in the resolution that a delegation is to go to Kuwait, then the issues of local government will also need to be addressed, as well as the procedural issue, because it is extremely awkward if such an important bill were not to be passed due to a procedural error. I look forward to a positive outcome to the vote on this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you very much for your words. I tried, through my group, to offer a translation of my words and to speak in Euskera, and the reply was that only one person per Parliamentary group could speak. Mr Wyn is from my group. He has been allowed to speak and I have not. That is what I understand from the reply I have been given.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the rapporteur on the report presented and the work undertaken. It reveals the anxiety affecting this important sector of European agriculture and, more particularly, significant areas of Greece and Andalusia, the main producer regions. Cotton is a traditional crop which provides a livelihood for thousands of European families for whom there is hardly any alternative source of income. There is a significant cotton shortfall in the European Union; we can only meet 40% of demand, and it remains the best natural fibre for fabric production, when compared to synthetic fibres. Furthermore, cotton has replaced other intensive crops which generate more pollution and greater surpluses. However, despite the improvements, it is true that there are still environmental problems we need to solve. Commissioner, we support the Commission’s proposal of maintaining the present system of production aid, based on the compensation payments system. However, we do not believe that imposing stiffer penalties is the right way to restrict expenditure on this sector. It is simplistic to talk of containing spending and only to present budgetary considerations for reforming the aid system, when what is really happening is that farmers’ incomes are falling whilst we are witnessing an increase in imports from outside the European Union. This constitutes a structural change, since expenditure has been determined principally by changes to international prices, not by an actual increase in the area of land under cultivation. Stiffer penalties will doubtless lead to greater concentration of the sector. It will pass into the hands of a few individuals and the viability of family farms will be seriously threatened. However, cotton growing will not cease, which is the intention. We believe that the producers’ organisations are the best means of improving the effectiveness of the necessary self-regulation measures concerning production and environmental protection. In conclusion I should like to stress that the Commission must gradually recognise the actual production in these areas. It should adjust guaranteed national quantities, bringing them into line with actual production of cotton, a product we do not produce enough of in the Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE