GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
May I start by thanking the Commission and expressing my appreciation of all its hard work on the accession of the whole of Cyprus to the European Union, acknowledge the importance of the announcement it has taken this opportunity to make and ask the following question: given that negotiations with Turkey are scheduled to start at the end of 2004, is resolving the Cyprus question one of the preconditions, the implementation of which will require a positive and constructive contribution from Turkey if it wishes to integrate? Also, now that this stage of the Annan plan has come to a close, does the Commission think that the European Union and the Commission will perhaps take on a more substantive role in negotiations between the two communities?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should also like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for an excellent report. When we look back at the very short period during which we have worked on employment policy within the EU, we have to note that it has been relatively successful. The level of employment has increased and unemployment has gone down, and that is indeed progress. Now that the economy is in decline, the moment of truth has, however, arrived, and I believe that the need for a coordinated employment policy is even greater than before. Even though the situation is encouraging now, we still see shortcomings, such as women’s low share of the labour market. It is not just that women’s share of that market is much lower than men’s. Rather, women are over-represented when it comes to atypical and precarious jobs in the labour market, even in countries which have a very high proportion of women in gainful employment. As has been observed in recent years, there are also problems when it comes to the older workforce. It is really a pity that such a small proportion of the population between the ages of 55 and 65 are in work. In this area, a range of measures relating to the working environment, skill development etc. is needed if we are going to be able to increase these figures. There are also very large regional differences and, for groups such as immigrants and the disabled, levels of employment are still very low. I welcome the discussion about quality at work and about not only creating more job opportunities but also increasing the quality of those jobs. In this area, a long list of measures is, however, required. That applies, of course, to the working environment, and especially to the new problems arising in the working environment in connection with people being stressed, excluded, burned out and such like. It also applies, however, to the issue of life long learning. I believe that this is perhaps the most central issue if we are to be able to obtain economic growth and create more employment opportunities in the future, and that is why I am supporting this universal right. I genuinely want to see a framework agreement at European level in which the social partners agree to this right. I do not know whether that is possible. Otherwise, the Commission will have to act. However, it would be the best solution. This right to skill development must then be adapted at national level within different sectors. Finally, a view of the open coordination method. The open coordination method exists parallel to legislation in the areas of employment law and the working environment. The open coordination method is good, but is lacking in the areas of democratic control and transparency. We must free the European Parliament to exercise influence on this process. The open coordination method has grown in importance over the course of a long period of time. It has operated relatively well, but there is a lack of democratic control.

Political group: PSE
It seems to me, with great respect, President, that the Council has yet again failed or refused to address the particular problem which I asked it to address. Last time Council might have claimed it lacked notice of that question. This time I put essentially the same point for the second time in one month and hope for some kind of an answer. Citizens of this Union are detained pending trial for totally unacceptable periods of time, their detention is extended and extended. This occurs particularly in Longuenesse jail in France and applies to truck drivers from the United Kingdom and other countries. I find it wholly unacceptable that this problem should be simply swept under the carpet, and we are assured that the mutual recognition of judgments will help in some way. I want to know why this question, this very plain and simple question, is not being answered. Are the rights of defence being adequately honoured and will mutual recognition do anything to help?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, I welcome this discussion enormously. I also thank the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, because had it not been for this initiative on the part of Mrs Smet, the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport would probably not be in the situation at all where our enquiry is being debated at least in this Parliament. Mrs Pack pointed out that the Committee on Culture has been waiting for months for our questions – just the questions – relating to applying coordination in the field of culture, education, youth, the media and sport to be dealt with here at all. This makes it abundantly clear that something is not right with the system. The debate this evening is an opportunity to lay the issues on the table, and I hope that we will also come to some conclusions. The method of open coordination can certainly make an important contribution to helping us meet the public’s expectations, and to improve coordination in important areas of policy where we do not want harmonisation. In my experience, however, this process will not gain public approval if it is not a democratic process. And to date it has not been democratic; it has been intergovernmental. This is why it is up to us to do something about it. If we believe efficiency to be contradictory to democracy, or flexibility or transparency contradictory to the responsible involvement of Parliament, then this – in my opinion – is indeed a sad reflection on our own shortcomings. This is why I hope that this debate and report can help to ensure that we finish our homework within a few weeks after the conclusion of the Convention, and that this House – and especially the two committees concerned – can respond to these questions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Amendment No 11 concerns a temporary committee. It is an amendment which I submitted myself, because although the two main groups had submitted a proposal for a temporary committee, there was no agreement on the content. I am trying to keep out of a political discussion that is taking place in one of the Member States of the European Union. I have always tried to do so, and I am now trying to do so again. Hence this oral amendment, which I think should combine various proposals better. I will read it out in English as that is the language in which the amendment was drawn up. 'Calls on the Conference of Presidents to give favourable consideration to any request for the setting up of a temporary committee that will, after detailed analysis of the Erika and Prestige disasters based on this report, assess maritime safety standards more generally in compliance with EU law, seek to ensure implementation of the recommendations contained in this report and propose any additional measures which are found to be necessary to avoid a repeat of such disasters and their consequences.'

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, just to add to that comment, the spokesman for Brit Air, the subsidiary of Air France which operated the flight, opined in The Times newspaper last week that even if the judgement against the Ryanair subsidy was confirmed, they might not re-establish the flight to Strasbourg, since they might find more profitable routes. This led me to write a letter that The Times printed, saying the European taxpayer would find it more profitable not to subsidise this EUR 169 million a year travelling circus to Strasbourg at all. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Charter which we are preparing to vote upon today with Europeanist conviction is certainly a step forward towards the political integration of Europe, in which we firmly believe. However, as has been pointed out many times, the text does not have the legal status of a treaty. This is why we need to take further steps forward. The final objective is to establish a European Constitution, a fundamental law for a Union, which cannot stop at simply having a single currency but must become a political entity with genuinely common foreign and defence policies, an interlocutor on a par with the United States which will be able to take up the great challenge of globalisation in which the countries of the continent of Asia are also set to become protagonists in the coming years, starting with China. Therefore, Mr President, the Charter only represents the start of what is going to be a difficult, time-consuming task, but a task which, at the same time, excites enthusiasm. The text which we are going to adopt today, parts of which, being the result of a compromise – as President Poettering said – fail to satisfy us, must be instrumental in triggering a large-scale debate on the future and on the future European Constitution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights must confer binding legal status upon the rights and establish the levels of responsibility of the Union, the States and the regions, and it must bear the people's seal of approval. This is why it has to be debated and endorsed by this and the national parliaments. In the conviction that the Europe of the future must increasingly safeguard individual rights and the rights of the family and that it must prevent the return of new forms of racism and anti-Semitism, the Members of Forza Italia and the will vote for the recommendation accompanying the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
The situation in Togo is not new. Indeed, since General Eyadema seized power, there have been constant violations of human rights: executions, cases of torture and arrests. After the electoral fraud last year which allowed General Eyadema to hold on to power, we are right to be worried about the democratic intentions of this regime. The absence of an independent electoral commission, the absence of fair access to the media, the absence of any guarantee of the right to campaign, have all led the opposition, which is in the majority, to boycott next spring’s legislative elections. Even if we take the agreement recently signed with the opposition to be a step forward, it is still inadequate, and risks being a meaningless scrap of paper unless it provides a number of guarantees. We must bring an immediate end to the impunity enjoyed by those who commit such abuses, and we must also ensure that the authorities do in fact respect human rights. The parliament must not only be dissolved, but we must also demand Mr Eyadema’s resignation, before the end of his term of office, so that genuinely free and fair elections can be organised. These conditions must be met if the European Union is to resume co-operation with Togo.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The collective training of officials, the collective development of radar equipment, the purchase of mobile surveillance installations and a collective border surveillance service belong to a different sort of Europe than the one the European Union has up to now professed to be. If the EU develops into one single superstate, it goes without saying that there must be one single minister of foreign affairs with one single embassy in every country abroad and one single collective seat in the United Nations. The remarkable thing is that nobody is openly advocating a superstate such as this. The Member States want to keep their embassies and their seats in the UN and the ministers of foreign affairs would rather coordinate their work through a common secretariat than through the European Commission. Specifically when it comes to everything to do with foreign affairs and defence, we try to show that the EU still consists of 15 sovereign states. It would therefore only be logical to opt for a standard access procedure for migrants and visitors from abroad and a standard border surveillance service if we really wanted to be one single superstate. What is remarkable is that we are now making a decision to screen off ‘Fortress Europe’ against the poor parts of the outside world without having reached agreement about a common future inside this fortress. I therefore reject this proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President I would firstly like to thank Mr Morillon for the efforts he has made on this report in order to bring together the differing points of view. Our colleague, Mrs Frahm, has already explained that we cannot vote in favour of the report, despite its positive content, for three clear reasons. The first reason is our dependence on NATO, which makes the European Union into a kind of dwarf next to the American giant and it is therefore essential to establish the European Union's own personality if we are to make progress. Until we do that there will be no future for the European Union. The second reason is the need to act more firmly once the Iraq war has taken place, because we must make it abundantly clear that the danger at the moment in the world is the aggressive behaviour of the United States. The strategy document of 20 September on United States security means beginning wars all over the world. Next will be Syria, Iran, Korea, who knows? I will not give names in order not to suggest targets. This is a great threat to security. Therefore my third point is that the European Union must play a fundamental role in the democratic strengthening of the United Nations and the Security Council. Furthermore, we must work to ensure that any conflict that takes place must inevitably pass through the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with international law, which is exactly what the United States are not doing. This European Union contribution is a success. This is what many South American countries have told us, that, in the face of the pressure – which I believe was entirely unjustified – from President Aznar to sign up two Security Council countries to the war in Iraq, they have responded with dignity and courage and have shown Europe an example, saying that peace and international law are more important than the dangerous adventures of the United States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the paper on the e-Learning initiative and congratulate the rapporteur on its content. E-Learning is becoming increasingly important. Until now perhaps less weight has been given to it in relation to education. It is, however, becoming increasingly apparent that our children's future is indeed a digital future. Therefore preparing for the use of information and communication technologies is becoming increasingly important. The training of teachers in this field is a top priority. I fully support this. But my concern is that once teachers return to their respective schools they return to find that very little ICT facilities are available for them. More often than not they find that they cannot communicate the knowledge acquired through training courses back to the children and make use of ICT in their classes because of lack of resources. Without the necessary tools to meet the aims of the e-Learning agenda, the goals of the Lisbon Summit will not be achieved. Having no direct jurisdiction over education in the Member States, how will the Commission ensure that these goals are being met and that Member States' governments will provide schools with the necessary equipment to realise these aims? Another problems is that technology is advancing at such a rate that it has become necessary to update computer equipment every few years. This has been, and will be, an added problem for schools working within very tight budgets. It is equally important to make training and education in the information society available to all individuals throughout their lives to realise job opportunities and for personal development as well. This is important and reflects the trend and the decrease in heavy industries in favour of the service industries which rely heavily on digitally-literate personnel. Let us reduce the gap between Europe and the United States. Let us create an e-Europe which is accessible to all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should almost like to say that the quality of our coastal zones here in Europe forms part of our heritage. Although it is rather late in the evening to talk about coastal zone management in Europe, I believe that it is a subject of particular importance which really needs a legal framework. Why a legal framework? Quite simply because the development of our coastal zones is sometimes carried out in such a way as to cause the degradation of those zones, despite the fact that, as a fellow Member has pointed out, the habitat of the coastal zones is sometimes a long way away from the major centres of population. This is not the case in every country, however. I come from a country where there are major population centres alongside coastal zones, and those population centres have finally destroyed the quality of the coastal zones, resulting in numerous cases of degradation caused by human activity. This degradation has very serious consequences for biodiversity, for the conservation of species, whether of fauna or of flora, serious consequences for the quality of the landscape, and very serious consequences for water quality. On that point, we have the framework directive on water, the one on bathing water, and you know, especially at this time of the year when the tourists start to invade our beaches, how important the quality of bathing water is. All this is very important, and it is also important for the quality of our fishery resources. We are aware that it is necessary to have a real political will, on the part of all the countries of the European Union and within the candidate countries, because among those countries which will shortly be joining us within the European Union there are coastal countries and islands which are facing the same problems, the problems that arise between economic development and the protection of our coastal zones. Economic development and protection are not actually opposed to one another, but there has to be a real desire to develop carefully, at the same time fully respecting the need to protect the landscape, biodiversity and so on. This will certainly require a legal framework. On that point I agree with other Members. However, we must have a legal framework which respects the disparities between our countries, because the coasts of the Scandinavian countries do not have the same problems as those of the countries of southern Europe, whether that means France, Spain, Italy or Greece. We must give a little more responsibility to local authorities and ask each State to set up a legal framework which is appropriate to the regional and local scale. In France, a coastline conservation authority was set up 25 years ago. It has resources to acquire coastal zones which have to be protected, and resources to ensure that, afterwards, land-use plans comply with legal regulations. This is what we should be doing. I believe that our coastal zones represent environmental and economic wealth which we absolutely must protect in the spirit of a sustainable development policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, poverty in the world is a violation of human rights and an intolerable breach of human dignity. It affects hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. This poverty has increased in the last six years. In the European Union there are 65 million people living on less than 60% of the national average income, to say nothing of the differences within the Member States. It is thanks to social transfers and social assistance systems that the poverty level has remained at 18% in the Union. But with the slowdown in economic growth, we are in danger of exclusion and poverty being aggravated again. An analysis of the proposals from the associations and the work of the Intergroup on the European fourth world clearly indicate that the fight against poverty and exclusion should become a vital element of sustainable development. The objectives set should be pursued and integrated into all policies, with more resources. I regret that the financial provision for anti-poverty programmes is still inadequate. The Laeken European Council should adopt political measures on income, employment, housing, health, education, training and culture. Parliament should also have objectives guaranteeing the right to quality housing for all, against the constant withdrawal of employment and services and re-establishing citizenship and equal rights. This is also why, on the occasion of the World Day against poverty, which will take place on 17 October, the European Parliament, in cooperation with the associations concerned, should also promote initiatives to raise awareness and to mobilise people to eliminate poverty and destitution. I hope that this day will enable us to make a further commitment to implementing programmes against poverty, by developing economic and social policies that really deal with the underlying causes of that poverty. Violations of human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Political group: GUE-NGL
My group, like many Members of this House as well as various experts, takes the view that the EU resources budgeted in the financial perspectives for 2000-2006 are insufficient, especially in view of the enlargement of the EU and the work which needs to be done to stabilise the situation in the Balkans, solve the problems of unemployment and stabilise social systems, to name but a few. There is therefore good cause to put the question of additional sources of revenue for the European Union on the agenda. Mrs Haug proposes in her report to abolish the previous system of transfers from Member States and to modify the own resources system so that the European Union can achieve financial autonomy. She calls for a European tax to be introduced as a direct revenue. My group cannot subscribe to this approach. The system of transferring a proportion of gross national product used in the past is based on a principle which is conducive to economic and social cohesion in the Union – the solidarity principle. To abolish this principle is to rob the European Union of its basis and, for us, this is unacceptable. We take a constructive view of the idea of supplementing the present system of financing the EU with further sources of revenue in the form of European taxes which do not minimise taxes in the Member States of the European Union. Our thoughts turn in this context, for example, to the introduction of a Tobin tax to cream off profits from financial transactions or the introduction of a pan-European CO2 tax on companies, which would also help us to implement a forward-looking environmental policy by applying pressure for more environmentally-friendly ways of generating energy and helping to safeguard the Kyoto agreement. We also take the view that the present financial regulation should be amended so that resources not called up by the Member States stay in the European budget, rather than being channelled back to the Member States. At the same time, we need to apply stricter budgetary discipline; for example, commitment appropriations not disbursed because they have not been called up by the recipient, should lapse after no more than 3 years, meaning that the allocation notice will need to be altered. That is why my group rejects this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL