GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Following Mr Goebbels’ excellent report, a motion has been tabled in the European Parliament that is too narrowly framed from the outset. Moreover, the Commission’s representative expressed a position on its behalf, that is, firstly, false and, secondly, unacceptable, as it does not mention all the abuses now being committed other than terrorism, such as the international financing of the drugs trade and corruption. Finally, a majority in Parliament, either inattentive or complacent, rejected many constructive amendments, including the creation of an Economic and Social Security Council, the need for better representation of all continents in global financial institutions, and the need to restrict financial transactions with Member States and off-shore centres which do not abide by even minimal international regulations. Parliament has even refused to declare that ‘financial speculation is one of the major causes of international financial instability’. When democratic parliamentary institutions refuse to acknowledge the evidence, they cease to serve the common good. The reason that I abstained was in order to highlight this, as I did not wish to counter the few positive effects that can still be found in the resolution after the report has foundered.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, freedom of movement is one of the four fundamental freedoms set out in our Treaties. Ensuring that persons moving within the EU do not suffer disadvantages in their social security rights and consequently coordinating national social security legislation is, therefore, a crucial element, as a number of my fellow Members have said. I am thus convinced that social security systems that function harmoniously and in a coordinated way are valuable assets for European societies. Acquired rights, the policy of simplifying pre-retirement benefits, clarification of sickness benefits, the assets that our colleagues have suggested in the field of handicaps, are the basic building blocks for improving this report, which addresses in particular the social protection of frontier workers and of those who move around within our territory. Even if those only represent a small percentage of the population as a whole, the problems that they face clearly warrant our full attention. On this matter, I have a specific example in mind: I remember inviting to Paris some Belgian doctors, who had practised in their country for 20 years. When they arrived at the social security office in Paris, they were told they had lost their rights. This shows that we must welcome this text. Nevertheless, some of the amendments contained in this report appear to be somewhat problematic. I am thinking in particular of Amendment No 3 and of extending the regulation’s scope, which I do not feel would be appropriate given the potential financial impact of such a measure. As for Amendment No 20, I believe it disrupts the balance of the regulation for no good reason. This is why I believe that Parliament must be reasonable and accept Amendment No 49, as Mrs Oomen-Ruijten suggested a short while ago in her speech.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission is now to obtain its discharge for 1997, but in reality it does not deserve it. 1997 was a matter for the old Commission and, therefore, the new Commission does not think that it can accept liability. It is true that implementation of the Budget for 1997 fell within the old Commission’s remit. The new Commission has, on the other hand, undertaken to carry out a cleaning up exercise following former scandals, and I must admit that I am not impressed at all. The old mindset which involved sweeping things under the carpet and protecting one’s friends unfortunately still exists. There are some who think that it is more in our interests to let bygones be bygones and make a fresh start. I do not, however, think we can make a fresh start if we do not tidy things up properly. I am referring here especially to the earlier scandals involving ECHO. I am very indignant about the fact that it is so difficult to get any documents handed over on this matter. I am the rapporteur for ECHO on the Committee on Budgetary Control, and I shall have a lot of difficulty carrying out my work if the Commission will not give me the necessary information. From the outside, it looks as if the Commission has something to hide. My investigations also unfortunately suggest that this could be the case. The Commission is not putting all its cards on the table and is in that way repeating ancient practice on the part of the Commission. It was this practice which led to the Commission’s downfall. I can therefore fully support the demand to give Parliament unconditional right of access to documents. Otherwise, we cannot carry out our work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights, may I start by saying that I consider it positive that Turkey has made an effort recently to improve the position of women in the country. However, we note that creating specialist mechanisms at state level is not enough and that, at the same time, they need to be reinforced with a strong legal status and generous funding, so that equal treatment of men and women can be promoted in practice and in daily life. All forms of violence, especially domestic violence, and the lack of legal and psychological support mechanisms for victims are still a specific problem. It is also abhorrent to note that deeds of violence are committed by the state security services against women, mainly from minority groups such as Kurds. As far as the penal code is concerned, Turkey is called upon to abolish the practice of reduced sentences in the case of so-called honour crimes and to abolish the reference in the penal code to women's virginity. Customs and tradition cannot take precedence over the rule of law. At the same time, a direct increase is needed in spending on health care, which is at unacceptably low levels, thereby obstructing the right of women to access health services. I also note that the participation and representation of women in democratic institutions is at unacceptably low levels, as is the participation of women in vocational training and employment. Mrs Smet spoke about this at length. Finally, we call for the immediate release of the former member of parliament and Sakharov prizewinner, Leyla Zana, who has been in prison together with three other members of parliament since 1994 on purely political grounds. The thirteenth hearing, a procedure which started approximately one year ago under pressure from the European Union, will be held in Ankara tomorrow. Today, we need to take advantage of today's debate to send a very strong message to Turkey and to call for the immediate release of Leyla Zana as a tiny sign that Turkey is at last moving towards Europe. Finally, Commissioner Verheugen, as a Greek, I should like to thank you warmly for your untiring efforts to help bring about a fair and sustainable solution to the Cyprus problem.

Political group: PSE
As far as the resolution on the future of the Union is concerned, there are many reasons why I could not vote in favour, and here are just two of them. First of all, Parliament should stop trying to avoid tackling issues that are crucial for the future of European integration, and should stop restricting itself to providing information – that is, in fact, very superficial – to those who will actually be performing our tasks. Furthermore, Parliament is harming its own interests by favouring the parliamentary experience of the future Chair of the Convention over an executive body, whereas the Commission, and Commissioner Barnier in particular, rightly reiterate at every opportunity that the confidence of governments in the Chair of the Convention will be a determining factor in the Convention’s hoped-for success.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Mr President, it is perhaps a pity we do not seem to have the same sense of urgency over this report, giving a right of citizens to access to information, as we have over telecoms liberalisation, but I shall pass over that. It is very important to emphasise that this directive does not grant a concession. It lays down practical arrangements for the exercise of a right which belongs to the citizens. So amendments, such as Nos 1, 5 and 10 which stress the existence of this right, are very important. Another aspect of the Committee's second reading report which should be stressed is the need to make sure that the dissemination of environmental information keeps up with modern means of communication technology. That is an important aspect that we would like to persuade the Council to take on board. The stress that is put on improving the quality of the information made available so that it is comprehensible, accurate and comparable is also very valuable. There is no point in having access to information if it is too complex or too opaque to be comprehensible to the layman – it renders such access meaningless. We also very much welcome the fact that the rapporteur seeks to ensure that any restriction on the right of information should only be allowed in specific, clearly-defined and exceptional cases. Also that there should be a 'harm' test, so that the harm must outweigh the benefits of disclosure if disclosure is to be denied. All these are very important. I welcome Mrs Korhola's acceptance of Amendment No 48 and, although she does not think it is perfect, I am very glad she can accept it.

Political group: ELDR
Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Mr President, I also wish to commend and thank Mr Van den Berg for his excellent efforts on this most important of issues. If there were only 100 people living on this earth, 15 would be illiterate. While societies enter into the information and knowledge society and modern technologies develop and spread at rapid speed, 860 million adults are illiterate. Over 100 million children have no access to school and countless children, youths and adults who attend school or other education programmes fall short of the required level to be considered literate in today's complex world and society. One of the main effects of low or no income is lack of education, insufficient schooling or, worse, lack of access to school education, which is one of the single most limiting factors in life. The poor have no access at all to training. Those deprived of an education or skills and vocational training have difficulty in finding work or developing their business talents. Poverty prevents both children and adults from going to school. Modern technology is not open to all on an equal footing, so the gap between rich and poor is widening. Poor people in far-flung rural areas often find it hard, if not impossible, to attend school because it is just too far for them to go. Insufficient education also prevents lots of people from knowing their rights or the benefits to which they are entitled. It makes it more difficult to handle any kind of relationship with local or national administrations, to obtain loans from a credit institution or to resist all sorts of abuses. Insufficient education also makes it more difficult to analyse information given by the media and political rhetoric. Overall Community programmes are still not sufficiently focused on reducing poverty. The proportion of Community aid spent in low-income countries has fallen from 70% in 1990 to 38% now. There are also too many programmes. What is needed is a radical simplification of development programmes. The unhealthy focus on geopolitical regions should be ended and a global approach to poverty reduction should be central. Resources should be allocated where they can do most to reduce poverty. Although, as I said, the European Union is the world's largest aid donor, the Commission and Member States should give this area greater financial attention as it is through investing in education in developing countries that we can begin to put an end to poverty.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the spring summit of EU heads of state and government has been devoted to the development of the economy and labour market. It is, then, also only natural that the two topics be linked, since they are two sides of the same coin. Success in employment policy is crucial to achieving the objective of economic policy. The fact is, moreover, that an economic policy that increases competitiveness and flexibility and so improves the economic incentives for creating jobs is the core of employment policy. In addition, there are the factors so brilliantly emphasised in Mr Mann’s report, which those of us in the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party are able to support and which we think will be improved by the amendments tabled by ourselves and the Group of the European People’s Party , amendments that we too shall of course support. Mr Mann’s report emphasises that we must have a stronger commitment to training, to improved incentives for accepting and creating jobs and to less bureaucracy and more flexibility in the labour market. Unfortunately, the common employment policy is seen, from the job figures and unemployment statistics, not to be an unqualified success. We are much too far from the ambitious targets set in Lisbon three years ago. It might be enquired whether they were too ambitious. No, they were not; but there are trend-setting countries that do not feel sufficiently bound by the promises. There has been progress in some areas, but this is overshadowed, I believe, by a general picture of too modest a desire to comply with the common objectives. I agree with the proposal you have tabled, Commissioner, for simplifying and clarifying the open coordination of employment policy with a view to having fewer guidelines. These are constructive reforms that have been presented, and I also think it good that we should have better coordination with the common economic policy. Furthermore, we must also become much better at monitoring and ensuring that the Member States do in fact feel bound by the fine promises given at the Lisbon Summit, and this also applies to the large countries.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, anyone who has ever lived or worked in a different country or even in a town or city distant from home will have experienced some of the difficulties that may be encountered in moving from one environment to another. Such difficulties become even more important when the change in linguistic and cultural context is a major one. Yet history tells us too just how mutually beneficial migration may be, provided that it is appropriately managed. The Moraes Report tackles the issues in a way that is at once realistic, sensitive and robust. It makes practical suggestions. Experience in Canada has already shown a number of these to be effective in achieving desired outcomes. I am particularly grateful for the extent to which the report identifies problems for migrant women and measures to assist in resolving these. I am speaking too on behalf of our shadow rapporteur, Mrs Boogerd-Quaak. Unfortunately she cannot be here today, but she would like me to express her thanks for the support that her amendments received in committee. We rather regret that, given the degree of consensus the report achieved there, it has been opened up for amendments in plenary. That said, we can support the majority of them, either in whole or in part. We particularly support Amendment No 10, which makes the report more positive to enlargement, and Amendments Nos 7 and 12 on family reunification. We do, however, have major difficulties with Amendment No 4, which backtracks on the commitment already made in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Moraes for the work he has done to produce such a worthwhile report and express the hope that it gets the support it so much deserves.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, as I see it, Mr Davies’ report deals fundamentally with the credibility of the EU’s environment policy and whether we really are to attempt to achieve the targets created by the Union. Ground level ozone is a serious air pollutant which creates considerable problems for public health and the environment. The targets we are setting to reduce the extent of pollution must be binding, otherwise we risk the decisions becoming mere castles in the air. It is therefore not good to have legislation which only talks about targets being reached as far as possible, as expressed by the Council of Ministers. In this respect we naturally support the committee’s proposal for clearer wording. Our group also supports Amendments Nos 5 and 23 which state that the targets must be entirely attained by 2020 at the latest and that they may not be exceeded by more than 20 days a year until 2010. Without these changes the legislation will be toothless. Another important aspect of Mr Davies’ report is the more stringent requirements in terms of information to the public. This type of air pollution has a considerable effect on public health. It is therefore important that all available information is made public to the general public and voluntary organisations. There must be consistency between the EU’s environmental policy in different areas. We have common targets for air quality and are currently negotiating with the Council to approximate the rules on national ceilings for emissions and large incineration plants. If this policy is to hold together, we also require binding rules on ozone emissions. With these words I wish to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work which we will vote for in every respect.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I am not going to reiterate what has already been said. The WTO is a failure in its present form because the WTO is no longer appropriate nor is it transparent. The first lesson we must draw is in fact the one the NGOs were demanding, i.e. there must be fair trade, not free trade, and in this respect, we must realise that nowadays no international organisation can escape the watchful eye of the citizen and that this is to be expected. The next deadline is already quite close. Geneva must not be allowed to go stealthily by. We, of course, have Marrakech, we, of course, have no obligation to achieve results, but we must remain vigilant in order to ensure that separate agreements on agriculture and services do not allow the things we shut the door on to get in by the back door. One of the lessons of Seattle, and Commissioner Lamy started to draw conclusions, is that we must find allies. We do, admittedly, already have a few allies. The most important ones will no doubt be, as Paul Lannoye emphasised, the ACP countries. To take European agriculture as an example, it cannot go on saying that it is doing fine, that it is multifunctional, that it is operating in a positive way, that it will henceforth protect its consumers, while at the same time maintaining a selfish attitude with regard to the countries of the south. In order to be heard, we must find the resources to enable these poorest countries to also have quality food, and quality products. The whole world today has the right to show solidarity and to have the resources to live better, to get out of this state of international self-centredness.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the last century began with the widespread use of poisonous gas in the First World War, that is, with chemical weapons. Then came the use of atomic weapons after the Second World War and the last quarter of the twentieth century, beginning with the Vietnam War, was marked by the development of biological weapons. We have to understand that our era, with the possibilities offered by genetic engineering, brings with it the potential for appalling destruction. Man's ability to destroy – and we are talking irreversible destruction – is increasing; at the same time, unfortunately, the international legal order is failing to keep pace and the foundation needed for the international legal order, especially common moral concepts and common ethical values, is becoming weaker rather than stronger; in other words, we have a weaker ethical basis alongside greater potential for destruction. This illustrates just how tremendous our responsibility is, which is why we urgently need to comply with and strengthen international law and work towards multilateralism on these issues. The USA obviously has a great deal of responsibility, as does the European Union, and we must guard against a tendency to play a part whereby, rightly as it happens in this case, we protest about the Americans but are unable or unwilling to act as an independent, powerful factor in the international play of forces. We are quick to criticise the leading role of the USA – and I believe that this leading role is, in fact, too big. That is not the fault of the USA, however, it is the result of political and, above all, security policy weaknesses in the European Union. I call on the Gothenburg Summit to set the right priorities once and for all and to focus on foreign and security policy at the summit so that the European Union can at last work as an equal partner with the USA. Then we shall be able to resolve these problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. The number of cases of foot-and-mouth is on the rise once again. As you know, the foot-and-mouth virus is harmless to man but is highly infectious to all cloven-hoofed animals and results in huge financial losses. With new outbreaks occurring, I again call on the Commission and the Council to favour vaccination rather than slaughter. We must rethink how we fight zoonoses in Europe and today we have what I think is a very balanced resolution in order to do so. Consistent preventive hygiene is only one side of the coin. With people travelling the world for business and pleasure, foot-and-mouth disease is an ever-present threat and we must be far more consistent in applying controls at airports to prevent this epidemic from coming in and spreading. I realise that both farmers and consumers are having difficulties with the ethical implications of the current vaccination policy. We are talking fatal consequences here. We must, at long last, move away from our non-vaccination policy. We need marker vaccines. We need a reasonable approach to ring vaccination and we need to make up our minds once and for all to show through our policy that science needs to make progress with prevention, that is, by formulating suitable vaccines. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE