GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I should like to make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the or in favour of this resolution. Although I understand some of the concerns of the people who wrote this resolution, especially in the run-up to the election in Pakistan, particularly that anyone standing for election should have to have a university degree, I do not agree with them. I agree that President Musharraf took over in a coup. But let me make it clear for the record that this was a bloodless coup; political parties were not banned and no restrictions were placed on the media. Yes, the legal framework order was reintroduced by the president, giving him powers to dismiss the parliament. But my understanding is that such powers exist in some EU countries. The French president, for instance, can dissolve parliament. I think we are looking at it too much from a European perspective. There have been allegations of corruption for centuries in Pakistan. These elections are a step in the right direction. The fact that many who oppose President Musharraf were elected surely speaks for itself. All parties in Pakistan welcomed these elections. They have just elected a Speaker. They are about to elect a prime minister. President Musharraf actually met his commitment – as the Council said – to hold these elections. Let us now look forward instead of looking back.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the European Union is an important community of values standing for democracy, humanitarianism and human rights. This is the basis not only for our internal work but also for our foreign policy. In many respects, the EU has a good policy on human rights. What, however, is missing is a coherent and consistent strategy for the way in which the work on promoting this is to be carried out. The various institutions are not always coordinated and there is a lack of follow-up and analysis, and this, of course, reduces our influence. Prior to the session in Geneva, I and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party hope for a strong and unified Europe which will vigorously pursue a number of issues. It was good to hear of the ambitions of the Swedish Presidency here today. It is good that the Council supports the resolution on the death penalty and on the rights of the child and of women. On behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I would also call upon the Council to support the drawing up of protocols to the Convention Against Torture, as well as to support a new international convention concerning those who have disappeared. The issue of refugees must also be raised. Violations of human rights occur in many countries. These must always be criticised, and when they occur in EU countries too. In certain countries, the situation is alarming, however. I really want to appeal to the Council to try to bring about a resolution on China, where outrages against Chinese citizens are becoming worse and worse, especially violence against Falun Gong members, which has been stepped up. The President-in-Office of the Council mentioned Iran and Chechnya. I should also like to add Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Indonesia and Afghanistan. In these countries, too, the situation is very alarming. Both the UN and the EU are important voices in the international debate. Many countries listen and take note of signals from ‘Brussels’. We can make use of this position to fight actively for human rights. It requires consistency, courage and a more thoroughly worked out strategy. I hope that the Swedish Presidency can help formulate such a strategy, not only prior to Geneva but also for the future, which is a natural arena for the EU’s foreign policy.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as far as the European Council in Lisbon is concerned, even though it was dedicated to employment, the unemployment of eighteen million women and men in the European Union and the human and social tragedy that this represents are just a grey area in a current economic situation which is more promising than it has been for a generation. Such cynicism borders on candour! The present situation, which is exceptionally advantageous to employers and the property-owning classes, arises specifically because of the extent of unemployment, the pressure that this exerts on wages and the generalisation of precariousness. As for the promise to create twenty million jobs in the years to come, this is just as deceitful as it is ridiculous. The Council presented the so-called new economy as the main provider of jobs for the future, but the stock exchange crisis which occurred a few days after the Summit demonstrated just to what extent the new economy was, more than anything, the basis for old-style speculation, and that the promised jobs in information and communication technologies were, after all, just virtual jobs. At the same time, the demonstration of Alsthom’s European workers in Brussels reminded us that the real economy, that of big business, is continuing to cut thousands of jobs and to make unemployment worse, while governments back these firms up by cutting support and allowances to the unemployed in order to force them into accepting any old job, at any price, under any conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The directive proposes to reduce some forms of financial crime, and we welcome this fine objective. We must be wary, however, of being totally naïve, first and foremost, because, as the rapporteur points out, ‘it would have been better to have had recourse to a Community regulation. But the Treaty does not allow it’. The fact that criminal penalties fall within the remit of the Member States leaves the net wide open and encourages, as is the case in fiscal matters, criminal operations spanning several countries. Furthermore, we do not believe to any degree that capitalism can work in a transparent and equitable fashion. Capitalist competition is a form of war by all available means, such as pacts, lobbying, organised accounting practices and fudged audits, as current events illustrate. We do not see money-making institutions taking swift measures to try to monitor their methods. As for ‘insider dealings’, we do not see how they could be dissuaded by declarations of intent – even if they are called a directive – when this does not provide for any genuinely restrictive penalty. In spite of these reservations, I voted in favour of the directive so as not to obstruct the minimal measures therein. - Huhne report (A5-0072/2002) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, this is the third document we have debated and put to the vote – and I voted for this motion too – on the regulation of financial activities. The subject this time is public offers and the documents which have to be delivered to those who intend to take part in public offers. In this case, I would stress, Mr President, that it is certainly important for these documents to be clear and to contain all the detailed information necessary, as specified by this directive, but I feel it would be much more appropriate for monitoring to be introduced to ascertain whether these initiatives are 100% sound. I therefore voted for the motion, in the hope that this directive will also provide for monitoring to be introduced. - Carrilho report (A5-0049/2002) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, as you know, this report is on decentralised cooperation. What is decentralised cooperation, you ask, Mr President? You see, that is precisely the problem: the report states that we do not know exactly what decentralised cooperation is. It has not yet been defined in practical terms, the definition is extremely vague. In any case, I voted for the motion despite this serious problem, for the report still seeks to help people living in countries which are much poorer than the countries of the European Union, although I hope that future directives on cooperation will focus specifically on monitoring whether these funds bring practical benefits to these communities. - Pérez Royo report (A5-0061/2202)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The main features of the text which has been debated today by the European Parliament are also to be found in a proposal which was presented by Mrs Lalumière in May to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and which was voted on in June. In accordance with the ordinary way in which matters are debated, the issue will again come up for debate at one or other of the European Parliament’s part-sessions this autumn. I find this duplicated work peculiar and difficult to understand. I have therefore chosen categorically to abstain in all votes on this subject, which is so important and fundamental to a non-aligned country like Sweden, blessed with peace since 1814.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group, I would like to congratulate Gerhard Schmid on his excellent report. The reports reaches the conclusion that a global communications interception system exists within the framework of the UKUSA Agreement, that this system is definitely known as Echelon, that it is used to intercept private business, and not military, communications, that the system’s technical capabilities are probably not nearly as extensive as some have assumed, but that prevention to some extent is necessary. In spite of what some minority voices say, Mr Schmid was not more preoccupied with industrial espionage than with individual monitoring. He is proposing no less than eight specific measures to enhance the protection of citizens’ rights within the framework of various international treaties, and he calls upon the Member States and the Council to adopt at least seven specific national legislative measures to protect citizens. Of course, some specific measures are proposed to assist businesses, but these are more vague and their scope is less extensive than the measures on individual monitoring. As a citizen of a country whose intelligence service is certainly very small-scale compared to those of its larger neighbours or allies, I still believe that it is misleading and futile to suggest abolishing the secret services. They exist and they will continue to exist. We should, therefore, draw political conclusions and seek solutions at this level – we should monitor the activities of these services, subject them to legal and parliamentary scrutiny, adopt uniform rules to protect citizens at the highest national level and apply this throughout the European Union. The proposals in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the resolution must also be seen from this perspective. With the strengthening of European security and defence policy and the EU’s increasing involvement in crisis prevention and management, collaboration amongst intelligence services is growing and the EU will eventually have to have an autonomous European intelligence capability. This can only be achieved if there is a system for democratic monitoring. With regard to Echelon, the resolution specifically calls upon Germany and the United Kingdom to make authorisation of communications interception operations by US intelligence services on their territory conditional on their compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Far from having wanted to create repeated diversions, Mr Schmid has dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s, he has more than fulfilled the mandate bestowed upon him by the Temporary Committee on Echelon and he has provided Parliament with a tool to enable us to continue the work he has done in the interests of protecting citizens. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, this report on the implementation of innovative measures laid down in the European Social Fund, which has been so well produced by the rapporteur, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, considers innovative measures and pilot projects on a European level relating to labour markets, professional employment and training, study, exchange of experience and also Community dialogue, which is an extremely important instrument for the creation of jobs and social cohesion. The priority objective of the European Union, as laid down at the Lisbon Summit, is to turn the European Union into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic development, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. This objective, which we all wish to achieve, demands innovative measures to integrate groups with special difficulties into the labour market. Notable in this respect is the need to maintain the objective of equal opportunities, since the presence of women in the labour market is still insufficient. The partnership between the different actors in the economy, as well as the choice of issues to be tackled, will help to achieve the proposed objective. Thank you very much.

Political group: PPE-DE
The own-initiative report by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities rightly draws attention to important aspects of the framework strategy and to annual work programmes and reports on equal opportunities between men and women in the EU. These include the fact that the aims for the strategy have yet to be defined in measurable terms and that the annual reports do not manage to combine addressing the political aims that I have highlighted and a thorough analysis and evaluation of the current situation. Although it contains certain aspects that I consider contradictory, I agree with the report when it highlights the lack of coherence between UN policy – as defined in the Beijing Platform for Action – and EU policy on equal opportunities. I also welcome the fact that it points out the lack of information with regard to the execution of a number of Community programmes, and when it expresses disappointment that the 2003 work programme, relating to priority actions, does no more than reiterate previous intentions. I also agree with the rapporteur when she underlines the need for a report summarising the 1995 Platform for Action in Member States, to be tabled before the end of this legislative period. Unfortunately, good intentions have not been translated into reality. In the neo-liberal offensive against workers’ rights, social rights and other social gains, the first to be affected are always women, who face unemployment and unequal pay.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, in one minute nobody should confuse attitude with platitude. I will be quick, firstly could you come back to this House when you know more about the timescale of the German contamination issue, particularly whether the rapid alert system worked effectively. There are more similarities with the Belgian case than I think you imply today. Secondly, would you accept with respect to consumer consultation that you need to be looking at the duty not to trade unfairly and the accumulation of case history in that field, as well as setting out the duty to trade fairly, which in your country and mine, and some others, is a fairly new concept.

Political group: PSE
The situation in the Middle East has been with us for decades. We have shown solidarity, in various ways, with the Palestinian people, and with those individuals and groups in Israel who are fighting for peace in the region. A joint initiative for peace, stability and democracy throughout the Middle East, in the words of the title of this Council and Commission declaration, would be worthy of our support if it were indeed a joint initiative for peace. What we cannot accept is that fine titles or headings disguise the imbalances inherent in the situation and even suggest misleading interpretations of events. Terrorism cannot be justified by attacks on terrorism; nor can terrorism be glossed over by giving it a euphemistic label such as ‘extra-judicial killing’ or something that uses a similar degree of linguistic imagination. The assassination of the Hamas leader, irrespective of what we think of that organisation, has contributed nothing towards peace in the Middle East; quite the opposite, in fact. Similarly, the fact that Ariel Sharon’s fascistic government is not being held to account for the escalation of violence and terror contributes nothing towards peace in the Middle East. Parliament and the European Union must adopt clear and unequivocal positions to condemn terrorism, but such positions will only have credibility when they condemn the terrorist policies of the Israeli Government and when those positions lead to concrete political and diplomatic measures, such as suspending the association agreement with Israel.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, criticism has already been expressed this morning of the ways in which strikes are bringing life in France to a standstill. Although, along with the criticism, there has also been sympathy, I do not comprehend how it is that strikes in France are a reason for this House’s air conditioning not working. All morning, it has been quite impossible to do any work in the offices on the side of the building facing the sun. (Applause) As far as the current temperature in the Chamber is concerned, the union probably would not allow work to be done under these conditions. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have started a new round – the umpteenth – in Milosevic’s war against the free media. So much is clear. It seems to be heralding the elections in a perverse kind of way. The campaign has started and anyone who disagrees with him needs to keep their mouths shut. It is really unacceptable that elections will soon take place – allegedly formal, democratic elections – in a country where the opposition has first been left without any tool to express itself. It is a trademark of a totalitarian regime which knows all too well that free, independent media are a nuisance and pose a threat, even to a regime such as that of Milosevic. The EU’s support – on which we are probably all agreed – can roughly take two forms. It would be beneficial to support the media in the neighbouring countries: Croatia and a number of other countries have been mentioned. I am in favour of this. But it can never replace support provided to the media in Yugoslavia, in Serbia, media which deserve this support. The EU makes a difference. The EU has made a difference in the past with its support. It has an obligation to do this in future and should also be given the means to do this. This is fine within the framework of the new CARA programme, but it is also particularly important that this should happen in two weeks’ time, in conjunction with the Stability Pact. At the finance conference on the Stability Pact, the European Union can and must commit itself to a number of programmes. The programmes are ready, the necessity is there; let us take swift and unambiguous action.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Member said that violence kills. No woman, no child in any country is immune from this violence. This violence is both physical and mental, both private and public and it costs the lives of 1.5 million people each year. DAPHNE is justifiably a beacon programme that seeks to combat the root causes of violence against the most vulnerable, namely women and children. Action aimed at preventing violence, combating violence and providing support lies at the heart of this programme. The number of DAPHNE projects is constantly increasing, and the first phase of the programme has been enormously successful. This demonstrates that DAPHNE is an appropriate instrument, and that the problems it addresses are of vital concern to the people of Europe. It is important we take account of the increase in the number of projects, the expectations of the NGOs and the enlargement of the European Union. These factors provide ample justification for the need to increase the programme’s budget. The budget only allowed 13% of the projects to be financed. For action to be efficient and effective, a bigger budget is needed. If the allocated budget is not increased, I think Europe would be guilty of failing to assist people in danger. By increasing the budget, the European Union will be sending a strong signal concerning the level of its commitment to this problem, something it could rightly be proud of. Furthermore, in order to be effective, we need to differentiate our studies and research to take account of gender and age. Combating violence, in all its forms, is not limited to a single programme called DAPHNE. This work should become an integral part of the policy in respect of the dignity that the European Union should afford all its citizens in all its Member States.

Political group: PSE
I would like to thank Commissioner Wallström for her reply. It could of course be said in actual fact that this type of pollution can be transnational, because we know that water carries pollutants along with it, particularly chemicals and heavy metals. The countries, particularly in the central parts of Europe, are so close to each other that it is difficult to say where the pollutants originate from. I think that a common strategy would be needed to deal with these issues. That is actually what I was after in the question that I raised. In her reply, Mrs Wallström has now said that there will not be a strategy in this area. The question is now whether the Commission is prepared to support research, further experiments and development in the respective Member States in order for us to cope with these problems, which are immense.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the Seville European Council, three fundamental aspects of the Union’s immigration policy were specified: firstly, the necessary management of migratory flows, in cooperation with countries of origin; secondly, taking account of the integration of legal immigrants; and finally, opening up negotiations of readmission agreements at European level. With regard to the first point, initiatives such as the proposal for a Directive on the free movement of citizens or family regrouping, or those relating to the conditions for entry for work purposes for immigrant or third-country nationals, should be approved by this Parliament as soon as possible and with the greatest possible consensus, in order to demonstrate that we are in favour of a single immigration policy. With regard to the second point, the success of an immigration policy undoubtedly depends on the integration measures which must accompany it. Therefore, reception and integration must be considered as an essential part of the general immigration policy and this means agreed action, not only on the part of the European Union, but also on the part of national and regional governments, civil society and the immigrants themselves. We must take advantage of the generally positive impact which legal immigrants have on our economies and ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of third-country citizens and the rights of receiving communities. I am happy to support the measures of the Danish Presidency with regard to readmission agreements. I would point out that in one of the Convention’s working groups it was said that the negotiation of readmission agreements with third countries has been shown to be more effective when carried out at European level. Another important point is the creation of an integrated system of management of external borders. In this regard, I would also praise the Danish Presidency, which wished to promote a rapid and secure exchange of information between the Member States, with a view to strengthening cooperation on the control of borders. In this regard, it is appropriate to mention the report adopted last week in the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on this issue. I would like to end with a quote from Mr Vitorino, which I have often used: ‘immigration is neither a problem nor a solution, it is a phenomenon of a clearly human, social, economic and political nature’.

Political group: PPE-DE