GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, there have recently been certain statements advocating the elimination of the Cohesion Fund. The removal of this Fund would penalise the countries which have managed to comply with the requirements for joining the euro and would simply be intolerable. Allow me to ask a few questions: why is there a desire to eliminate these cohesion funds in the future? Why is there a desire to simplify the procedures for the Structural Funds? What is the Commission’s view of the future of the Cohesion Fund for the candidate countries and for the citizens of the Member States?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make a few observations following on from this dossier. First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Oomen-Ruijten for the work she has done. Secondly, my contribution should of course be considered as an appeal to the Social Council and the Commission, but mainly the Social Council, to do something about this dossier at long last, particularly in the knowledge that this is the start of the necessary deregulation of the movement of workers across Europe. Frontier work falls under free movement, and will grow, especially once the candidate countries have joined. Despite this, there are still major problems to contend with. Especially in my own country and a number of neighbouring countries, Belgium and Germany, I notice that different groups wish to apply different principles. Foundations involved with frontier workers argue in favour of the principle of the country of residence, trade unions support the principle of the country of employment, the government itself believes in the principle of the country of residence, and so it goes on. It is about time we made a decision, and in that sense, we are unwilling to support a number of amendments which Mrs Oomen-Ruijten tabled, and which are partly designed to adopt a mixed approach. We suggest using the principle of the country of employment as point of departure, and to develop this so-called European social model.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Rio summit of 28/29 June 1999 marked the beginning of a new phase in bi-regional relations with a view to creating a strategic partnership between the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean. The main objectives of the new Joint Strategy must, in line with the priorities adopted in Rio, be political, such as with the extension of the Bi-Regional Political Agenda; the update and revision of political dialogue at ministerial level and the creation of a EU-Latin American Transatlantic Assembly; economic, financial and commercial, such as the conclusion of various Association Agreements and the creation of a EU-Latin America Free Trade Area, which is planned for 2010, and social and cultural, such as the creation of a Bi-regional Solidarity Fund and a global plan to combat drugs, amongst others. I therefore give my total support to the rapporteur’s position reiterating the need to establish the bi-regional strategic partnership approved at the Rio summit and in the recommendation to the European Council with a view to approving the EU’s common strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean, on the basis of the objectives established in the Rio summit’s priorities. Lastly, the report highlights the need to improve cooperation on the basis of a sustained and integrated partnership, with a view to promoting human development and the development of civil society and the consequent benefits to all levels of society. - Motion for a resolution on air transport (B5-0702/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Mrs Hautala on this report. Europe has a long tradition of fighting for equal rights for men and women. The position of women particularly was very important: equal pay for equal work, equal treatment by social security, independent rights in pensions and social security and a number of regulations relating to the combination of work and care. Today’s legislation sets a new milestone. The proposal gives a new content to the principal of discrimination, which issues from the Treaty of Amsterdam, but certainly also from the judgements of the Court of Justice, which has always been a fighter for women’s rights. For the first time at European level the concept of sexual harassment has been given a clear content. Sexual harassment is a violation of the principle of equality between men and women and also violates the dignity of men and women. It is better to tackle this problem now. With regard to the content given to the principle of discrimination I am grateful to the rapporteur that my amendment, which was intended to broaden the concept by including alongside the workplace admission to work and to a profession, as well as the training and education which lead to a position, was immediately accepted. I should like to express my annoyance at the fuss just made by Mrs Van der Laan. She devoted a part of her allotted speaking time to saying: It was my idea. I, Mrs Van der Laan, came up with the idea that men too and parenthood must be discussed. Mrs Van der Laan, if you had paid better attention, you would have known that that idea would at any rate have obtained a majority in our group. So I think that in that respect voting behaviour will show that there is no great opposition. In conclusion, discrimination is often connected with gender. The only problem I still have concerns the concept of foster-parenthood, for which there is there is no legal basis. I wonder if we should not provide one.

Political group: PPE-DE
With your permission again, share fishermen, as I attempted to explain clearly, are self-employed due to the nature of their ownership and operation of their vessels. Previously, share fishermen were specifically exempt from working time regulations in the same way that other self-employed people are or had been. I just asked for clarification of whether the particular position of share fishermen has changed since the previous debate?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Redondo on the magnificent work she has done on her report. I believe that all of us here consider it very important to continue improving and fighting for these measures against the factors which contribute to all the deterioration of the European Union’s forests, such as fires and acid rain, to which we can now add the Commission’s proposal, relating to the fight to improve biodiversity. In view of the obvious deterioration of the forests, I believe you should be sensitive to Mrs Redondo’s proposals. One of the issues I know best and which I believe is highly topical relates to the southern European regions, which are – as you know – most sensitive to the risks of forest fires. With regard to these regions we must continue to develop and expand a specific policy and we must combat forest fires. In relation to the Mediterranean forests, although they offer a great variety of strategies for combating drought, at the same time these strategies make it very easy for them to catch fire. The dry, arid climate, accidents – caused voluntarily or involuntarily – are reasons for the vulnerability of an ecosystem which is under a lot of pressure and which requires a lot of assistance if it is to be conserved. We will therefore support Mrs Redondo’s report, and we ask the Commission to be sensitive to her amendments, and also, the great majority of the speeches of those of us who are trying to support the report by Mrs Redondo. Prevention and safety are very important in terms of maintaining all the European forests, above all in view of the characteristics of the southern forests. It is essential that the Commission take note and that it be sensitive to this report and our speeches defending the forests.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on 20 November 1989 the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted, and I think that the tenth anniversary of that event is a good opportunity to take stock. Our Member States did indeed ratify the convention, even if in some cases it was with certain reservations, and they should now be removed as a matter of urgency. We Social Democrats have over the last ten years worked hard to secure a better hearing for children’s rights, and have emphasised these rights with various important reports and resolutions. This goes back to the report in 1991, in which Parliament for the first time dealt with children’s problems, and in which I was already demanding a children’s ombudsperson. I should also mention the Bandres Molet report on a European charter for children’s rights and last year’s Zimmermann report on minors. We have also given a very high level of political priority to children’s needs in various reports to the UN world conferences, in conjunction with third countries, and in particular with the ACP countries. In the course of this year, Parliament has submitted a succession of proposals to the Commission, and it now expects the Commission to produce a communication in which all these initiatives are brought together. The various tasks on the list of priorities should be tackled one by one. Right at the top of the list is the incorporation of fundamental children’s rights into the new treaty. Secondly, using the Daphne programme as a first step, as the first instrument for taking action to counter sexual exploitation and violence against children. Thirdly, there is the situation of girls and young women, which merits special attention in all areas of policy, as they are still exposed to particular discrimination not only here in Europe, but all over the world. Fourthly, we must do everything we can to ensure that children are not involved in wars, either as victims or aggressors. We do not want to see any more child soldiers anywhere in the world. Two minutes is very short and the list of tasks is a long one. Please take some action!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we have just heard various positions on asbestos, which is a genuine public health problem, that are all based on the same observation but arrive at different conclusions, namely that asbestos poses a highly significant risk that must not be underestimated, that the data are not conclusive enough, and that we must certainly not risk making companies pay too many charges. This is not very responsible. The said conclusions, which underestimate a risk as significant as exposure to asbestos, are clearly to be given as much consideration as the grounds for applying the precautionary principle. The original Community legislation prioritised this protection within the context of the manufacture and processing of asbestos. This legislation has borne fruit, but a total ban on production has not yet been implemented in certain countries. Today, the question of the upkeep and maintenance of asbestos found by chance during building works requires a new framework for intervention and new legislation. This amendment was necessary but the goals of the directive thus amended are not yet truly equal to the seriousness of the problem. Mrs Damião’s report, which has genuinely tried to give workers greater protection, is absolutely remarkable. However, I would like to highlight two points. First, the problem of derogations: the proposal for a directive does not meet our expectations on this point, so we shall vote for Amendment No 21, which we consider to be a minimum; second, the question of responsibility: as shown by the latest judgments passed recently by the French courts, the wording of the text must allow the broadest possible responsibilities to be envisaged as the concepts of project managers or site managers are not specific enough to be completely effective. I would like to end with a clear warning to all those who do not wish to support all the minimum specifications proposed here, and who would therefore be willing to take responsibility for the significant health risks that would affect many workers in Europe. This underestimation of the risks of exposure to asbestos and failure to apply the precautionary principle, a procedure which may well be costly but is less costly than human life, could lead to considerable responsibilities for employers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, transatlantic relations are going through a difficult period. I feel we must emphasise how paradoxical this situation is, because, as Commissioner Patten said, the expression of European solidarity following 11 September was indeed absolute and exemplary and Europe expressed this solidarity using the resources at its disposal. We can, of course, always criticise Europe for the disparity between its international ambitions and its defence means or the coherence of its common foreign policy, but the fact remains that Europe did display its solidarity. There are lessons to be learned from the weakness of our resources and I support Mr Obiols i Germà’s comments on this point. I also believe that we must recognise that the task of the Commission and the Council is made more difficult by the attitude of a US Administration which, whilst continuing to make demands in terms of solidarity, is totally indifferent to the effects of its own policy on its partners, and on developing countries as well, when you consider the consequences that its decisions might have for the agricultural or steel industry. We all want to strengthen our relationship with the United States, but let us hope that we will not have to sacrifice our European positions to achieve enhanced cooperation. I do not think that we can criticise the Commission for a lack of strategic vision, as the Commission is defending European positions in the transatlantic relationship. Given the intransigence of the US Administration, however, the response is certainly not to sacrifice our values but perhaps to state more generally, at international level, the strategic vision that Europe is adopting to contend with the sizeable problems of collective security and co-development and with the problems of the future of the planet and the environment. This should encourage us to bring an end to the confrontation with the United States. A further reason for our current difficulty is the fact that the United States is finding it hard to accept that the European Union naturally aspires to be an equal partner and on friendly terms, but also to be treated as equal in return. It is up to us to affirm our European identity, as Mrs Bonino said. I think that this will greatly contribute to more balanced relations with our American partner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report by Mrs Kinnock is one of those which the Socialist Group has followed with the greatest interest and affection. The text gives figures which are often so scandalous that they should provide little comfort for our consciences, because, at the end of the day, they demonstrate the incoherence of almost all of us who believe that the education of children is important for the success of any development process. There are plenty of declarations recognising that child education in the under-developed world is one of the main conditions if those countries are to be able to begin to free themselves from the situation of justice and backwardness they are in. Mrs Kinnock’s report mentions the numerous commitments made in this regard by the international community on different occasions. The latest was the world conference on education, which took place in Dakar last year. The report, however, is also a compendium and a condemnation of incoherences and irresponsibilities. Incoherence and irresponsibility on the part of the developed countries which, despite their promises, have not only failed to increase their programmes in favour of education and care for children in the developing world, but in fact have reduced their efforts in that area. And incoherence and irresponsibility on the part of the countries of the South which, apart from very few exceptions, are still neglecting the education of their youngest citizens in the face of other priorities such as military expenditure which, in the majority of cases, is still above what is invested in education. The resolution which we are voting on should not remain, like so many others, as a worthless piece of paper. This call for coherence and responsibility is a genuine demonstration that our Parliament should promote this issue as a European Union objective. Furthermore, however, this report should serve as a reference for the action of the Union and many European States, members or candidates for accession, at the United Nations General Assembly which will take place in New York in a few days time. Glenys Kinnock will be there and will speak out clearly, in the knowledge that we all support her and with the strength which the support deriving from our approving her proposals will give her. Documents such as this are the best way to respond with specific proposals to a form of globalisation which, since it is mainly focused on the market, is creating inequalities, poverty and exclusion on a world scale and is therefore becoming repellent to many people throughout the world. I will end by offering our thanks and congratulations to Mrs Kinnock on her work. It will be important to implement what is expressed here, but we must start by broadly distributing the report. This will convince and guide many people and will increase the credibility of the European Parliament amongst the citizens of Europe. It will also contribute to some people outside our territory recovering their confidence in us as well as their own sense of hope.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was probably the first to hear about the terrorist attack this morning at 7.40, so I have known about it for a while now. The attack happened in Catalonia about three or four kilometres from my house and it appears that the situation is worsening since, even though ETA have already killed more than 800 people, they have committed yet another atrocity, even as we speak. No political objective justifies the use of violence. We can but express our wholehearted condemnation of terrorism and particularly at a time when the terrorists seem so intent on destroying us. We must therefore, once again, strongly reiterate our firm and cooperative position as the Commissioner said, in support of a strong democracy, given that terrorism constitutes a direct threat to our core values. We should like to express our solidarity with those who have been affected and also, in particular, our hope for peace. In the wake of the latest atrocity, the debate is especially difficult for this Member, and this is something I commented on to four of the five people that signed the declaration against terrorism in Spain. I pointed out to two of them that the signing of the declaration may prove difficult for some due to the content of one of the paragraphs, the second paragraph in fact. This paragraph rejects dialogue with any group that tolerates terrorism or that is involved in it. The reason I spoke to the authors of the text is that I think they need to find a formula on which everyone agrees. One might wonder why the second paragraph of the text as it stands is proving so difficult to sign. The reason is because it calls into question the culture of peace and the culture of dialogue. What is more, if we renounce dialogue the Northern Ireland peace process would not be possible, the Middle East peace process would not be possible and, the Member of the European Parliament, Mr John Hume, would not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and I think it is important his work receives recognition. If ETA does not give up its weapons, we shall not give up ours. If ETA refuses to renounce violence, we shall refuse to renounce the law and dialogue, which are our weapons. We have no others. This is why I strongly urge those that presented the declaration – as I have done so in private and do so now publicly – to do all they can to enable us to sign it, because any position that is adopted on terrorism requires universal backing. On the other hand, if this declaration is supposed to stem from the 1997 declaration adopted by Parliament, which spoke of dialogue in positive terms, it would seem strange not to have recourse to it, and in particular, to the eighth paragraph in which Parliament considers dialogue in positive terms. Mr President, we should all be in a position to sign the declaration. Nothing justifies the use of terrorism and nothing justifies the failure of democratic forces to adopt a united front in the face of it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the current situation lends a great deal of weight to the opening sequence of Roman Polanski’s award-winning film ‘The Pianist’, released last year, which showed a Polish family joyfully celebrating with champagne when it is announced that the French and British have declared war to go to the aid of Polish democracy in September 1939. The rest of the film shows the extent of the suffering awaiting the family. These images are useful in that they temper the confidence we might have today in a cause which, ultimately, is just, and our hopes for a democratic future for Iraq, and add a human aspect. For, as a last resort, the combat taking place will set soldiers from democratic States against a totalitarian State. And in the face of such a situation, it is impossible to remain neutral. Mr President, war is an evil, but in some cases it can be the lesser of two evils. The war has begun and Europe has been unable to prevent it. We must therefore do all we can, Europe must do all it can to ensure that this war is the lesser evil.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank the Swedish Presidency for conducting the enlargement negotiations so skilfully and for preparing so well for the Göteborg Summit. I want to take up two subjects so that everything else is not drowned out by the referendum in Ireland. First and foremost, sustainability. I believe that getting this overall strategy on sustainability adopted will be a very positive contribution to European development. We need to see incorporated into European cooperation a compulsory system for integrating environmental considerations into all areas, something which will happen with the Sixth Environmental Action Programme as the environmental pillar for the strategy during the next few years. As we specified in Parliament’s decision, sustainability must be seen in a global context. At the moment, there are no other powerful parts of the world, outside the EU, which are in a position to take on that role, and I therefore hope that the presence of President Bush, who is perhaps the least sustainability-minded of all, will paradoxically make the EU more strongly united regarding this task. And now a couple of words about enlargement. We must be careful of rhetoric. I believe we must show respect for the decision taken in the Irish referendum. I am also listening, however, to the Irish politicians on both sides of the referendum debate who say that it was not enlargement as such that was the problem in Ireland. I therefore think it is very important that, following the referendum in Ireland, it should be clearly accepted that the enlargement negotiations can continue at the same pace until such time as a solution is found in relation to Ireland. It would be an historic mistake if, because of this referendum, enlargement were to come to grief or were to be postponed when it was not this that was the problem for the Irish people. I would therefore call upon the European Council, headed by the Presidency, to show flexibility, provide maximum support and make time for finding a solution that is satisfactory to the Irish population.

Political group: PSE