GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is marked by a good sense of community and by confidence in Europe's future. Positive emotions help to overcome the difficulties that still await the candidate countries. Processes of economic adjustment call for the greatest political and social commitment on the part of all sides. The processes of restructuring heavy industry and mining alone will call for an intensification of accompanying measures to combat rising unemployment. This makes it necessary to use all available measures that might help to prevent it, and to step up the social dialogue in the candidate countries. That alone will guarantee that social and labour legislation will continue to progress along democratic lines. We talk a great deal, and on many occasions, about the social dimension of Europe, but deliberately forget to point out that legislation on social affairs is just as important a constituent part of the acquis as are, for example, the provisions on competition. The transposition of the social acquis has an importance extending right across Europe, as it can be a means towards achieving stability preventing potential conflicts. In view of this, I ask you to adopt the two amendments in the name of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, tabled by Mr Oostlander and myself. In the time that remains to us before the candidate countries accede, much remains to be done in the areas of employment policy, economic policy and social policy. It is incumbent on those Member States that share borders with the candidate countries to support cross-border cooperation and press for advances in it. Workers in these regions must be helped to come to terms better with changes in the labour market. This alone will enable us to dismantle prejudices that still affect the freedom of movement of services and workers. I wish to conclude by emphasising that, in any case, the candidate countries deserve the greatest respect for the efforts they have made to date with accession to the EU in mind.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs De Sarnez, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad that this programme is entitled ‘Erasmus Mundus’. I am glad because it refers back to a shared root, from which sprang the cultural and linguistic diversity of the European Union. On the subject of diversity, I would like to emphasise how close to our heart it is that this long-standing objective of the European Union should be reflected in the requirement for written and oral competence in two EU languages in addition to the mother tongue. This is an objective that we should consistently pursue. My fellow-Members have already mentioned so much: equality of opportunity and the fight against poverty are goals towards which the European Union is expected to strive. What else is still expected of this Union of ours? For what can we still be a motor? What do we expect of ourselves, and what do we have to offer? Here too, I am repeating myself and merely saying what has already been said, but we must again lay stress on one fact. It is that we can offer an area of tolerance, a space full of respect – something that cannot work without education – as well as a space for intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence. That cannot work without education. That too leads me to appeal to the Council, for it can work only if we are ready, right now, to invest, if we replenish Heading 3 rather than simply capping it and saying that we will squeeze it out of something else. Whilst we are not meant to be debating what that 'something else' is to be, it is something that we still have to talk about. As Mrs Wenzel-Perillo said, this question has to be put here more than just once. We have to show our colours! The investment in education that we are making today will bring forth a harvest that will bring gladness not only to us within the EU, but also beyond its borders. That is what is expected of Europe! (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in order to add to the information you have provided on the possible mission to the Ivory Coast, there is firstly the issue of security and then, as well, that of carrying out the mission in relation to the ACP Assembly, because, in this type of case – and I had expressed this to Mr Scarbonchi, and I do not therefore understand the accusation directed at my group, bearing in mind that the President of the Ivory Coast is a Vice-President of the Socialist International – we must take special care not to give the impression that we are indulging in neo-colonialism.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. The Committee on Petitions, as we point out in the explanatory statement, had confidence in the rapporteur we had in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. In other words, we believed that it was not necessary for the Committee on Petitions to produce an extensive report and to present it as if it were a fundamental report, because we had confidence in our rapporteur in the Committee on Freedoms. All I want to say is that we fully support the most important aspects of the rapporteur’s proposal, which improves the European Commission’s proposal. Firstly, we support the fact that there are so many references to the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe because we believe it is closely related to the debate we are holding. Also the reference to increasing the rights of asylum seekers and their families, whether or not they be traditional families. We have very clear examples of families which are not traditional but which are extraordinary families. We also support the capacity for Member States to introduce and maintain certain aspects which are even superior to those laid down in the directive we are debating. I also agree with the removal of the paragraph which proposes using semi-public organisations to protect asylum seekers. We believe that only the State can duly protect asylum seekers. And non-repatriation in the event that the applicant is at risk of the death penalty or corporal punishment. This Parliament has spoken out very clearly against the death penalty on many occasions. Also the reduction in the time limits for enjoying working, educational and childcare rights, as well as the extension of the residency permit. Of course, the establishment of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for those who fail to comply with this directive. We believe that the concerns expressed by the Committee on Petitions are duly taken up in the report by Mrs Lambert, and we therefore support it. Mr President, I believe this is a very important directive which will reflect a Europe of rights and a Europe that receives those people who feel persecuted.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, for having, at first reading, voiced the concerns of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. Given the daily practice of this Committee, these could only be concerns relating compliance with this legislation, as raised in some of the rapporteur’s amendments and compromise amendments. All policies should be integrated into environmental policy – as stated in some of the amendments – and public participation and information is necessary – also as stated in some of the amendments. I am not hiding the fact that, as a citizen of a small mining region in Asturias – and I am speaking here in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my group – that I have some problems with the amendment on imposing a time limit on subsidies for projects that could damage the environment. I do not have a problem with it in general terms, but specifically with regard to the fact that, in the region in which I live, more than 30 000 jobs have been lost as a direct result of restructuring. For this reason I do not agree with these amendments. However, we completely agree with the rest of them. We also agree with some of our fellow Members – and I am sure that my colleague Jonas Sjöstedt would support me here – that this latest proposal is not the one put forward by the European Parliament. This is a proposal that was debated, on which agreements were reached between all of the groups and between the rapporteur and the Commission and the Council to arrive at this latest proposal that we have here. For this reason, I also agree with the rapporteur that we cannot accept, and shall reject, the amendment from the Group of the Europe Liberal, Democrat and Reform party that suggests rejecting the proposal. The proposal is highly important, Mr President. The Fifth Community Environment Action Programme has come to an end. The European Union needs a clearly defined strategy with commitments and specific timetables for the next few years and it seems to me that this is potentially a clearly defined proposal with commitments and a specific timetable, which, indeed, we have a great need to implement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, last July I tabled an oral question to the Commission on renewing the scientific and technical cooperation agreement with Israel. In substance the reply said that the Commission believed that the development of relations with Israel would make a significant contribution to the Middle East peace process. You have said more or less the same thing to us today, Mr Nielson. Although I share the idea that knowledge and an exchange of knowledge help build a better world, in the same ways as economic cooperation, I am particularly stupefied by this answer. Indeed, this position completely disregards the Parliament’s Resolution of April 2002, of which it is obviously right to remind you here given the general title of the debate. We all know that in paragraph 8 of the Resolution, Parliament asked the Council and the Commission to urgently convene the association council to give its position to the Israeli Government, by asking the latter to respect the UN resolutions, and, in this context, called for the suspension of the Association Agreement. Where are we, a year and a half after this demand was worded? When the Agreement began in 1995, just after the process in Oslo, some regarded it as helping to build peace. The situation now, however, is radically different. What type of cooperation is the Commission talking about? Partnerships can only be devised on the basis of mutual trust, and of shared rights and obligations. Now, the criminal attitude of the Israeli Government shows every day that it not only flouts the concerns of the Union, but also that it outbids the other in this fatal situation. More than a year ago now, Israel erected a wall in the West Bank allegedly for reasons of safety. In actual fact, it is an iron curtain that massacres the Palestinian territories and drives tens of thousands of inhabitants in their homes. In this way, new territories are being annexed. It is time to give Parliaments’ Resolution tangible form. There are precedents. In 1990 the Commission enforced Parliament’s recommendation that scientific cooperation be partially frozen until the Palestinian schools and universities that had been closed unilaterally by the Israeli authorities were completely reopened and remained so. It was at least a few months before it was possible for them to reopen. Today, given that the clause on the respect of fundamental rights has been brutally violated, and in the sight of the whole world, in what way is this demand for suspension excessive? In what way is it excessive to ask that this law is applied and respected? Finally, and I conclude Mr President, I am aware that the responsibility of the Council, shamefully absent today, is enormous. As, in theory, a member of the quartet, the Union has the means to carry weight. What it lacks is the political will to do so.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the rapporteurs on the GMO dossiers have tried to draft reports that are in line with each other and that make an agreement with the Council possible. I respect their work. I also assume that progress in these dossiers is required so that the actual moratorium on admitting new GMO applications can be lifted. I have voted along with my group for these two reasons. Nevertheless, I am all but convinced about the quality of some sections of these pieces of legislation. I fear that we will need to revise them in due course. Obviously, I would also like to increase consumer confidence in GM food. For this purpose, I think that, above all, a great deal of information is needed about the benefit of using the new techniques and about the safety of the foods in question. I hope that consumer organisations and universities will join in, because according to the 'euro-barometer', they have the greatest power of persuasion vis-à-vis the consumer. I too would like to give the consumer as much freedom of choice as possible, even when the keeping separate of varieties, traceability and labelling put up food prices. However, the information that the consumer obtains should be crystal-clear and flawless. Detectability should then also replace the paper criterion. Unfortunately, we in the Group of the European People’s Party lost that battle at first reading stage, and so I conclude that we are now treading a costly path – costs for the farmer, industry and therefore also for the consumer – without reaching the actual goal. The question is whether it would not have been preferable if we had provided for confidence-building measures, namely objective information on a massive scale. Luckily, we have a safety net: the evaluation that will take place a few years down the line will hopefully restore common sense. - Klaß report (A5-0191/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have no comments with regard to the Minutes, but I have unfortunately missed a large proportion of this interesting discussion because there are no Dutch interpreting services available at the moment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all, I want to say thank you both to the French Presidency and to Commissioner Patten for their excellent contributions this morning. The priorities established deserve all our support. Time permits only a couple of remarks on my part. I choose to concentrate on the deficiencies in the implementation of the Union’s development cooperation. Commissioner Patten deserves praise for the openness with which he describes and has described the problems. My own experience when, in a responsible post within the UN’s development programme, I sought cooperation with the Union at national level with a view to assembling and coordinating forces in different areas was that, as a rule, it did not work, either because almost every decision in the EU’s case needed to be taken in Brussels and also because of the lack of qualified staff within the area concerned. All this made cooperation with the EU difficult and incredibly time-consuming. The UN has its problems with bureaucracy and dilatoriness – I am the first to admit that – but, where development work and development cooperation are concerned, the EU was lagging far behind, in any case a few years ago. The conclusion I draw is, first of all, that the Commission must radically decentralise the right of decision-making to national level. “Brussels”, with all its administrative levels, must relinquish a large degree of control. Secondly, it is important to ensure that the Commission has an adequate number of qualified staff to carry out the operations about which decisions are being made. I know, Commissioner Patten, that this is the direction your politics are taking right now. I would just emphasise that it is a matter of urgency. If there are no rapid improvements, I fear that the Commission’s support for development cooperation will gradually disappear. That would be a pity, given that well-developed multilateral cooperation has many advantages and that the Union needs such an instrument in order to be able to play a proactive role on the international stage.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Schreyer, I congratulate you on this ambitious project and have the following questions. The new system must be operational from 2005. What do you propose doing in the meantime, since the Court of Auditors has been voicing strong criticism of the existing bookkeeping and accounting system since 1994? You know that Parliament will very likely be dealing with these problems once they have been put before the Committee on Budgetary Control. How much longer will it take after 2005 before everything is really operational if the new chief accountant – probably supported by the committee you referred to – will then actually have to guarantee that it will work?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this report is vitally important. We are profoundly affected by the tragedy of trafficking in women which is a modern form of slavery. Our priority must be to give aid and assistance to the victims. We must fight to eliminate all the links in the chain, namely recruitment, transport, managers, middlemen and clients. By holding this debate today in the European Parliament, we are helping the victims to regain their dignity and integrity. Women and children are being traded like goods and doomed to prostitution. Trafficking in women is an important type of trade for organised crime which regards human beings as goods to be bought and sold. Misfortune, misery and the false promises of pimps are luring these young women into our countries. They are attracted by promises of employment and some even come in the hope of getting married. They have no idea of the miserable conditions in which they will be exploited, beaten, tortured and threatened. Over half of the victims are under the age of 25 and around 10% are between 15 and 18. Even if these very young girls seem willing, because they are being threatened or are in love, we cannot, at any price, allow prostitution to continue freely when you see how these women are terrorised and traded. This is why, in our opinion, we cannot use the term ‘forced prostitution’ in this report. Trafficking in women involves terrible sexual exploitation. We must help these victims to speak out and denounce their living conditions. We must welcome and help them. The pimps are very violent and victims must pay off large debts to cover the cost of their journeys and the various identity documents which they must acquire. When they resist the pressure of traffickers and pimps, they are threatened either personally or through their families. The traffickers belong to a Mafia-like criminal organisation and control several links in the network that has power over the victim. There is no way out for victims and the very nature of the environment in which they work often reduces them to despair and drug addiction. Some even go as far as committing suicide. Fighting against trafficking in human beings is essential but it is better to prevent this. It is therefore vital to establish a system of information and preventive education for both young people in the countries concerned and also clients who are often what we would call ‘family men’. We should not forget that trafficking has economic roots. Inequalities and relationships of dependency between privileged and disadvantaged countries mean that it is still always the weakest in society, particularly the women, who pay the price. We demand a coherent European policy which is why this report is so important. Trafficking in women is a crime. Trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation are unworthy of humanity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall begin in the same way as many of the previous speakers and thank the rapporteurs. Mr Gil-Robles and Mr Tsatsos have done good work, and so we should endorse what they are basically saying, that is, that the consensus achieved by the Convention should not again be unwrapped. There was, though, one area of the Convention’s work where consensus was no longer sought, in which a number of the ‘more equal’ in the praesidium ruthlessly forced through their interests and those of Europe’s ‘big boys’. The issue to which I refer is that of the composition of the Commission, the outcome of which was one to which the small and medium-sized states in the EU cannot say ‘yes’. A Commission in which not all the Member States were always fully and equally represented would lose the political legitimacy that meant that all the previous Commissions were fully-fledged players in the European Union. It might well survive as a perhaps more efficient body, albeit one consisting exclusively of technocrats. The Council would then cease to be part of the present balance and would start to assume supreme power. That cannot happen; it must not be allowed to happen. In the interests of all Europeans, not only of those from the small and medium-sized Member States, we need the IGC to give a different answer on the one point where the Convention’s praesidium no longer sought the consensus of all. In the interests of all Europeans, we will need, in the future too, a representative and fully-fledged Commission with one Commissioner from each country, one that will carry political weight and really give every one of the EU’s citizens the feeling of being equally represented in all the European institutions. That is what the IGC must ensure; it should not do much more than that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is true that there was still talk of a framework directive at Barcelona but that, at Seville, it was no longer on the agenda. Now, the subject is a Green Paper, but there has already – in the year 2000 – been a Commission communication on services of general interest, a Commission report to the Laeken Council and, indeed, many documents and positions adopted by the institutions, particularly the European Parliament. Well then, at this rate, by the time the framework directive is adopted, all the sectoral directives on energy, postal services and transport will already have been adopted, the timetables will have been established for liberalisation and there will thus not be much left needing a framework. The Commission is, indeed, very behind and we can only wonder what this means. Where liberalisation is concerned, we legislate and we set dates without even planning proper mid-term reviews. When it comes to public services, we organise debates on debating documents. Like many of my fellow Members, I, for my part, feel that a precise legal framework is essential to protect and facilitate the development of public services in Europe as an essential part of citizenship. Now, public services cannot be subject principally to internal market rules because their objectives are long-term objectives, not immediate profitability, whether they relate to social and territorial cohesion, equal treatment or, as is sometimes the case, even equal pricing. Thus, these are not objectives which will bring an immediate return on investments, and they therefore cannot be governed by purely commercial reasoning, including where their compatibility and financing are concerned. I believe that, in the field of public services, we must be able to continue to finance what is not profitable with what is, and, therefore, that it is necessary to balance out prices. Since there is going to be a Green Paper, it would be appropriate, together with the social partners, users and local government representatives, to assess the long-term impact of liberalisation in a number of sectors in terms of quality and safety. I am thinking, by way of example, of the British railways, of employment and territorial cohesion. I am thinking of the postal services and the risk that oligopolies will form, and another example is telecommunications. I believe, in conclusion, that we need to give the Member States the possibility of having exclusive operating rights in certain geographical areas and of having reserved sectors which are not open to competition, for the expectations of the Union’s citizens are very high when it comes to public services.

Political group: PSE