GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank my colleague, the rapporteur, Mr Schmid, and congratulate him on the guidelines he has proposed in his report, with which we largely agree. In fact, like many of my fellow Members, I consider that the European employment strategy we have known over the past five years has, to varying degrees, perhaps, depending on the regions, been effective and has benefited the citizens of Europe. However, I believe the time has now come to review its structure and also to propose a new strategy that takes full account of the coordination of macro-economic, social and employment policies. From this perspective, we have just reviewed every aspect of European employment strategy during the last five years and proposals have been made regarding the guidelines to follow. I would like to focus on three points. The first point concerns the necessary relationship between the European employment strategy and national employment plans and in this respect, I believe it is a question of the relationship with citizens and the understanding citizens may have of European strategies that affect them. In actual fact, this relationship takes place through the intermediary of the national parliaments, both in giving their consent and in implementing the European guidelines. In this regard, I believe the situation to be something of a paradox. The employment situation is deteriorating. The European Union’s efforts to set up employment strategies should target people in difficulty. However, those who should be able to benefit from the actions are in fact the most disillusioned, the most critical and those who least understand our positions and the proposals we are making. I therefore think that if we try to implement a coherent strategy, which fully involves the national parliaments by allowing them to debate national employment plans and make them their own, we will contribute to democratising European procedures, in particular with regard to the European employment strategy, and legitimise our actions in the eyes of the European citizens. The second point – on which, I believe, everyone agrees – is that, in order to be effective, the European employment policy should really be an integral part, in socio-economic terms, of European policies. The objectives of full employment, education, lifelong learning, all of which have been cited, are in fact parallel objectives which largely fall outside the scope of the guidelines for each sector alone. Lastly, in conclusion, I think we need to review the subject of the social instruments used by Europe. In fact, even if we reach an agreement on the objectives to be achieved, we still need to provide ourselves with suitable instruments with which to implement them. On this subject, I believe we must reconsider using the codecision procedure and majority decision-making with regard to employment policy. Although the open coordination method has proved useful, I believe it must be used to complement the other legislative instruments, as was originally intended.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I accept the reasons that the Conference of Presidents had in the first place for keeping separate the debate about the substance of the proposals which we are all very anxious to be getting on with. But I also believe that we have unfinished business in relation to the recent controversy. As others have said, there are wider issues that are worthy of further inquiry. For instance, it is a remarkable coincidence that 10 years ago, the last time the CFP was under review, the then Director-General of Fisheries departed in very similar circumstances during a very similar controversy. So in order to clear up the cloud that could hang over the Commission in this matter, I think there is a case for further consideration, separately from the Fisheries Committee's consideration of the substance of the proposals.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament and the Council have therefore reached agreement on a conciliation package that has the value of appearing to do something against money laundering related to drugs offences, whilst doing nothing at all. Who can tell the difference between the proceeds from organised crime and those from normal economic transactions? Especially because the banking system itself does not want to make this distinction, as it believes that it is not the job of the banks to determine where the proceeds come from, only what the proceeds make. And it is public knowledge that laundering of the proceeds from crime is not only carried out in tax havens; laundering also, and more importantly, goes on in the largest banks in the financial world. If adopted, this resolution will certainly not prevent the proceeds from organised crime from passing through the financial system and from being invested in so-called normal activities, which are, in many cases, just as criminal as mafia money, if considered from a humane point of view. It is absolutely scandalous to create one’s wealth out of drug money. It is equally scandalous to make a fortune from manufacturing and trafficking weapons. And it is even more scandalous to allow pharmaceutical corporations and their shareholders to become rich from having a monopoly on trademarks of some medicines, when this monopoly increases the price of some essential medicines by ten times or more, condemning to death all those who do not have the means to pay these prices. This is all legal however. The European institutions may have the power to decide what constitutes a legal or illegal way to use the proceeds. They do not have the power to ‘exonerate’ the proceeds.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am sorry for what has happened, because I heard, or I think I heard the Commissioner say that he will keep up the dialogue and continue to regard NGOs as important, but in this context I should like to ask the following question: clearly, Commissioner, we as Members of Parliament, and specifically the Socialist Group, are not going to uphold or overlook the possible bad management by the NGO Liaison Committee (CLONG), but we do think that the political principle of dialogue with the NGOs is very important, and a large proportion of these NGOs is represented by the CLONG. Therefore, we understand that the solution that may be presented is not in proportion to the seriousness of the irregularities that the CLONG administration may have committed, and that if a way out of the current situation is not found the NGO Liaison Committee may close. The question is, therefore: does the Commissioner foresee a way out of the financial situation without precluding the fact that the Commission should then negotiate a restructuring or new way in which the NGOs must work and how they must coordinate themselves?

Political group: PSE
The regulation to be amended at the Commission’s proposal was described two years ago in the wake of the BSE crisis as a central issue and an important decision within the context of European consumer protection. The stated purpose of the regulation is to protect animal and human health and to increase or restore consumer confidence in the quality of beef and meat products. What was it that persuaded the Council to adopt this regulation when it did? Was it perhaps a way of saying to the public, look here, we are doing all we can to end the BSE crisis, while never really having any serious intention, either then or now, of implementing the regulation. Unfortunately, it was just that. The public has been cheated and, on top of everything, a disservice has been done to European consumer protection. To be sure, some speakers voiced their concern during the first and second readings that the text of the law was perhaps too strict and that there would be problems with its transposition. So there were signs. If that was the problem, we had the chance to rectify it but, unfortunately, we did not make use of that chance. The errors on the part of individual Member States, and I would be most interested to know which Member States, is only one side of the coin; the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Commission is the other. Allow me in this context to remind the Commission of a few agreed dates: the Commission should be managing an electronic data base on 31 December 1999, i.e. in 16 days’ time. Is this data base up and running? The same question arises in relation to the Member States’ reports on the implementation of the beef labelling system; these reports were supposed to have been sent to the Commission by 1 May 1999. Are they available? Obviously the delay with all the stages of transposition has not come about overnight. The Commission must have been able to see at the beginning of the year that the deadlines set could not be kept. Why then was Parliament not informed of these developments earlier, as it could have been in July. Today we are discussing postponing the entry into force of the regulation without really knowing how transposition is progressing in the individual Member States, without knowing how long implementation will still take and, more importantly, what action has yet to be taken. The original intention of the regulation, which was to generate confidence in European consumer protection, would be reversed by this sort of measure. The Commission’s present proposal is, in my eyes, confusing and lacking in background information and I am therefore unable to support it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Unfortunately, the young workers of Britain are not likely to see a great improvement in their situation as a result of our adopting this resolution. The directive will not meet the needs of young workers any better just because we have put an end to the scandal of this derogation for the English (as the United Kingdom did not fully comply with the directive limiting the work of children and adolescents). This debate should, instead, have provided an opportunity to amend the directive to remove all the derogations it contains, which prevent it from being properly effective. There is no justification for authorising young people of 14 and even 13 years of age to work in any way whatsoever [Article 4(2c)], outside compulsory school attendance [Article 8(1b)] and during school holidays [Article 8(1c)]. Nor is there any justification for the derogations allowing young people of less than 18 years of age to work more than 40 hours per week, over 8 hours per day [Article 8(5)], and do night work [Article 9(2)]. There is no justification for applying any restriction to application of the directive in the case of domestic service in a private household or to work in a family undertaking [Article 2(2)]. There is no point in denouncing child labour in Africa or Asia if we do not protect our own young people against economic exploitation and work that is harmful to health, safety and development and if we do not ensure that they receive training leading to qualifications in a system quite separate from that of the employers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
He was a determined and skilful Member of the Commission, a bit like a steam train, and occasionally in debates he would slap us MEPs like cod on a jetty, but what of that? What is most important is that this sort of thing does not spread to the civil service or gain popularity there. The impartial nature of our administration is the most important issue for all of us here and in the Commission. There is a real need to reform the bureaucratic machinery of the European institutions, and an end must be made to these sorts of cliques. This is what the public hates most about the European Union. That was seen in the elections and in the campaigning. Our citizens do not understand an administration that works along such lines, and we should not wonder. Mr Prodi's Commission is off to a good start, and I congratulate him on that, but it must continue as it has begun. I thank the Council for taking a swift decision to bring this case to the European Court of Justice, but as we have to be the pioneers in an administration which is open and efficient, so Mr Prodi's Commission should get ready for the test in September. I believe that by the start of next year, we will see, on the basis of the study by the five experts, what the Commission has achieved with regard to its own administrative reforms and those of its body of civil servants. Therefore, we shall meet up here once more at the end of the year.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to thank you for enabling us to arrange this properly. I thought we had submitted the names in time, but there was some misunderstanding. What is at issue, then, are the anti-terrorist laws and a European arrest warrant. We are strongly critical of these terrorist laws, and above all of an arrest warrant, in terms both of their content and of the speed with which these laws have been devised. We are also critical of the fact that there has been no basic examination of the proposed laws or assessment of their impact. Moreover, the European Parliament has in actual fact dealt with the issue without much in the way of reflection. We were therefore also extremely anxious that our Amendment No 4 should be voted through today. Unfortunately, it was not. I therefore think that Parliament has not accepted its responsibilities when it comes to protecting those deprived of their freedom and safeguarding human rights. Following the attacks in the United States on 11 September, the work designed to produce new anti-terrorist laws within the EU has proceeded at a furious pace. These draft laws are extremely far-reaching, and the security of the individual may be in danger. The same concerns also apply to the interpretations brought to bear upon how a terrorist group is really to be defined. A majority of the Group of the therefore voted against the arrest warrant. All this is also having further consequences. In Sweden, the freezing of the assets of al-Baraka, a not-for-profit association, has directly affected a number of Swedish citizens of Somalian origin. It has also been made impossible for Somalians to send money to needy families and relatives. This is a clear example of what can be the indiscriminate effects of these laws, and the fact that measures of this type can be taken without any proof being required is an injustice committed against people. In my opinion, greater reflection and more impact assessments were needed before we took this decision.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think we should remember how the multiethnic Macedonian population coped with the conflict in Kosovo. They received around a quarter of a million refugees, which is a very large number, considering how small a population we are talking about. That is something we must not forget now that things are going so badly in Macedonia. I also think that we must take note of the fact that the Albanian population in Albania is not participating in this conflict, presumably because they see a possibility that peace may give them a future. They can see economic and democratic development. There is a need for that development throughout this area. I cannot refrain from reminding you how easy it was for the NATO countries and many EU Member States to find money at the time when the former Yugoslavia was to be bombed. Where is the same will to find money now that there is a need for reconstruction and for economic and social development in the area? This is the core of the whole peace process. It is about finding the means, for that is how the way is also found.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the symbol of the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement brings hope to battlefields worldwide. Perhaps I could be allowed a special reason for celebrating these conventions, as one of my family members founded the British Red Cross movement. Article 1(b) of the relevant Convention forbids the taking of hostages. Article 23 of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights says that no one shall be forced to leave the country of his residence or be arbitrarily deported therefrom. Millions of people are suffering worldwide. Speakers today, from Graham Watson onwards, have made those points earlier. But let us think just of a few people in order to bring home the horror and suffering. We recall that on 20 August 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait in a unilateral act of aggression that was universally condemned. Nine years later, more than 600 prisoners of war are unreleased and unaccounted for by Iraq. Iraq is a formidable enemy. UNSCOM has destroyed 38 000 chemical weapons munitions, 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents, 3 000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, 48 Scud missiles and a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50 000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. Her strength and power for evil purposes is matched only by her determination not to find the missing prisoners. After nine years she has only provided information sufficient to close three files. This afternoon, when we debate Iraq, do not forget the missing Kuwaiti prisoners of war. Do not lift economic sanctions while their fate remains uncertain.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I will begin by congratulating the rapporteur. As the shadow rapporteur for my group, I have seen her diligence throughout these proceedings and we all wish to honour her work. This is quite a new state of the parliamentary proceedings, and we need to pick our words carefully as we look forward to a potential conciliation. At second reading we are deliberately putting forward only a few amendments which centre on some very important principles, and on most of those we will reach a further agreement. As Mrs González Álvarez has said, the committee passed, by a substantial majority, all of the amendments, and we propose to vote for them today. We need – we think we shall get – a clear assurance that we shall move ahead from these proposals to the safety of services and the liability of service providers and there should not be any division of principle on that. We need to make it crystal clear that we shall also be able to take out of the market, not just for us, but world-wide, those products which present a serious risk, not just for domestic consumption, but also in the global market, because such products can easily be recycled, as Mrs González Álvarez says in her new Amendment No 13. We are asserting that principle today in the signing off of the Maaten report on tobacco, and it is precisely the same principle that we invoke here. Of course, there will have to be some compromises and discussions, but we need to look very carefully at what the word 'exemption' means, if it is going to be asserted as a limitation on the path to withdrawal. There is a will to agree and a will to compromise, but we need to do it on the basis that the precautionary principle is always held in mind in our discussions and that this is consistent with other things which this Commissioner and this Commission have done in terms of the banning of dangerous products elsewhere. Finally, I would like to say that whilst I am certain that we can harmonise the guidelines on safety which will be used throughout the enlarged EU and we can agree on external certification, we need to be careful of other phrases which I hear bandied about as possible compromises. One is 'where appropriate'. Where is not appropriate, where we are applying the precautionary principle? It has to be there throughout, not necessarily as the leitmotif, but certainly as something that we bear in mind in framing the legislation. So I cannot, I fear, go along with Mrs Flemming's amendment, and I, like most of the committee, wish to press these amendments. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, others have spoken about rich and poor countries, about the prosperity we have in Europe and the quite contrasting conditions in lesser-developed countries. Mr Bautista Ojeda was speaking about that just a moment ago. As Europe today revels in its economic success and prosperity, we need to consider at what expense it has been to other parts of the world, and the consequences for these counties. Part of our success and prosperity today is the result of our policies of the last and the nineteenth century when imperialism went to other countries around the world, and we are now reaping the consequences. We can do far more about this than we are actually doing at the moment. The difficulties manifest themselves today in Europe in the pressure for people from less developed countries wanting to migrate to Europe, and in people fleeing from some of the countries that are so desperate not just because of their economic situation, but also their lack of democracy and violence, and seeking asylum in the west. We can do more by helping those countries. It is not just about huge amounts of development money; the aid needs to be sustainable. One thing that we can do to help those countries would be to look again at our common agricultural policy – looking to reform that. At the moment, we are dumping subsidised goods on lesser-developed countries, which does not help their community, economy or farmers at all. We protect our own agricultural community in Europe at the cost of other countries. Whilst we are subsidising our agriculture, farmers and poorer people in countries all around the world are going under because they are unable to compete. So we must look at the common agricultural policy. We must work with the WTO to make sure that the standards and the conditions that they set do not contribute to poverty. We can do more then we are doing at the moment.

Political group: PSE