GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, this summit was highly significant and its outcome better, less repressive, than expected. We will look back in amazement at how much more progress Europe made on cutting red tape on goods and businesses than it did on people. This must now change quickly. But Parliament is not yet a full partner and that must be our goal over the next few years. It is unacceptable that Europe’s directly elected representatives are, despite the presidency conclusions’ stress on democracy, marginalised in the creation of the area of freedom, security and justice. May I say how much I believe the voice of Parliament is strengthened by the ability of four groups to agree on the resolution put forward today. I can only pick out a few points, but firstly: refugees. We welcome the reaffirmation of the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention, and credit is due to the Finnish presidency for this point. It is very important that the common EU asylum system – which ought, however, to be a single system and incorporate EU funding – should not be based on the lowest common denominator. We must also be very careful not to whip up racist prejudice and we look forward to proposals based on Article 13 to combat racism. On individual rights, some progress was made but not enough. We very much welcome the reiteration of how important it is to legislate to give legally-resident third country nationals rights as near as possible to those of EU citizens. This is now urgent. We also need tangible progress on the rights of EU citizens to move freely and reside elsewhere. It was a pity nothing was said at Tampere about rights to access information and documents despite transparency being cited as one of the important principles. In the area of access to justice we need mutual recognition to be accompanied by common minimum standards and it would have been good to see something about the rights of people to get bail when they are criminal defendants in a state other than their own. We look forward to the body preparing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which it would be appropriate for a representative of this Parliament to chair, producing a document which can confer direct rights on EU citizens and enable them as individuals to enforce their rights in the European Court. It is appropriate to give governmental authorities greater cross-border powers to pursue criminals but the use of these powers must be supervised by the European Parliament and the European courts so that civil liberties are entrenched and robustly defended. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
This initiative forms part of an approach of introducing proposals little by little in the aim of increasing discretionary powers, on the pretext of the fight against terrorism, in this case, through the completely unjustified creation of SIS-II. This initiative must be rejected, because, in particular: - it allows bodies, particularly from third countries, to have easy access to information of a personal nature, without any sort of control; - it provides no guarantees that every proposal for the SIS’s functioning will be approved by the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority; - the argument and the concern about terrorism cannot be used as a pretext for creating files on citizens, for purely political reasons, which could lead to the SIS becoming a political information service, serving a future European police policy, with unforeseeable consequences for safeguarding citizens’ freedoms and rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we have a very good report here, thanks in large part to the rapporteur, who leaves us in no doubt that he understands this matter in practice as well as theory. It has just been said that we have to distinguish between businesses on the basis of size. I would be cautious about this though, as it is a question of transparency rather than size. We talk about creating transparency through the ‘from stable to table’ concept. Well, small businesses are transparent precisely because consumers understand them and have direct contact with them. If something is wrong, they report it. Mr Schnellhardt, you write that ‘confidence is good, control is better’. I would agree with this, but nevertheless, confidence has to be discerning. We have to know in whom we can put our trust. The big problem is that meat is marketed anonymously and no one actually understands how. This anonymity is a cover for business deals that are criminal and practices that only just border on legality and of which the consumer would certainly not approve. We have just heard about water with protein being added to chicken in order to sell something cheap at an expensive price, and protein so subverted that it is not possible to detect the DNA or determine from which species of animal it comes. These examples show how the ethics in food consumption – if I may use this expression – are being abused as a result of this anonymity and at the cost of the consumer’s health. And that is why it is a question of increasing not just confidence, but legitimate confidence. This has to do with making consumers more discerning. Of course, producers do have responsibility, and we have talked here about their individual responsibility, but so do consumers, who have to take responsibility for their health by informing themselves.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The illegal, unjust and illegitimate war against Iraq waged by the UK and US armies, with thousands of highly destructive bombs including cluster bombs being dropped, with the deaths of thousands of people, the destruction of huge residential areas, markets, hospitals, schools and other public places, followed by the sacking and pillaging of the historical and cultural heritage of the Iraqi people and of humanity as a whole, demands that the Bush Administration and its allies be called to account for their actions. We cannot accept any attempt to whitewash the crimes that have been committed, in an attempt, after the event, to justify the aggression and occupation. We regret the fact that the EU has not issued a clear and resounding condemnation of this aggression against Iraq and we insist on the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces. The sovereignty of the Iraqi people and the territorial integrity of its country must be respected. Solidarity with the Iraqi people, with the Palestinian people and with all peoples engaged in a struggle means that we must step up the fight for peace, for disarmament, to abolish nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, for military bases in foreign territory to be dismantled, for NATO to be dissolved, against militarism, for the UN Charter to be respected and for peoples’ sovereignty and their right to decide their own destiny to be safeguarded.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Commissioner Verheugen for his address. He very helpfully reminded us that we had the Convention because of the shock of Nice. I recall that earlier this week, Mr President, you and I were addressing a meeting of the CBI in the United Kingdom and I made the same point then. This whole process is one that goes back to the Nice Treaty and the shock of the outcome of the referendum in Ireland – I do not ask you to comment on that, Mr President. What we talked about at Laeken was engaging with European citizens and explaining what Europe is about to citizens who are feeling remote from Europe. Yet the headline in the EUobserver last week was: 'Campaign launched to save Constitution'. MEPs are reported to be so concerned about the activities of national governments in the IGC that they felt it necessary to take to the streets in defence of the Convention's plans. We have heard in the debate today that the Convention must be defended against something wicked that is called national self-interest. Those who have launched this campaign will find it rather difficult to rally the electorate to their cause; according to a recent opinion poll, 61% of the European electorate have never heard of the Convention at all and in the UK 83% of people have never heard of it. What people in my country and the rest of Europe want is a referendum on the Constitution. In a Eurobarometer poll published last week 84% of the people polled in the 15 Member States and 10 accession countries wanted a referendum. In the UK that number is 86%. Mr Duff is amongst them: his party also wants a referendum. He and I might differ significantly about the implications of this Constitution, but as democrats we should be in a position to argue our case with the people and to see what the outcome of that debate should be. What message is being sent in my own country by the continued refusal to listen to the people whose interests we are elected to serve? I should like to clarify a couple of points relating to the Convention. I would be grateful for clarification from the Council on the position outlined by the Maltese Prime Minster, who said recently that there had been some agreement from those countries that do not have to hold referenda that they will not allow referenda. That is not a democratic situation. I am very grateful to President Prodi, who has accepted that the Constitution amounts to a big change from the basic concept of nation states, a position confirmed by the German, Spanish and French Governments but denied by my own government. Finally, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Mr President, you and I heard a UK minister putting forward the view that there was nothing to worry about. A former UK minister said that in the United Kingdom the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have as much legal force as the Beano. The Beano is a comic for children in the United Kingdom. I rather think that this Constitution proposes something different. That is why I believe that the people should have a say in it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, unlike some colleagues, I do not believe that this House should seek a delay in fulfilling its responsibilities in relation to temporary agency workers. If we are to promote flexible labour markets then we must ensure that those working within them are not put at a disadvantage. We cannot risk temporary work being used as a way of bypassing normal employment laws rather than, as it should be, a properly regulated means of satisfying employers' short-term needs. It is for this reason that we should not emasculate the proposal by removing pay from the scope of the directive or applying it only to workers in assignments of more than 12 months. That said, I am not convinced that we have yet struck quite the right balance between flexibility and protection. There are real difficulties in implementing a fixed-term worker comparative for pay in the case of assignments of a short duration. Accordingly, I urge colleagues to support Amendments Nos 72 and 74 which should overcome this problem. Similarly, I hope for a positive vote on Amendments Nos 71 and 73 which guard against any adverse effects the directives might have in both the shorter and longer terms. Finally, my special thanks go to the rapporteur for the inclusive manner in which she has handled a very difficult dossier and my personal good wishes to her for the outcome of the vote tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, without doubt, the extremely important “historic directive”, as you called it, and the corresponding European Parliament proposals have come at the right time. And on time! The need to combat discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin or religious conviction is taking on a sense of urgency on the continent of Europe. The revival of fanaticism and Mediaeval attitudes, the emergence of parties based on racial perceptions and the increase in violence bear witness to the fact that respect for others who are different, which is a feature of advanced societies, has not yet been fully achieved. Clearly, in the 21st century, ideological and political convictions will meet somewhere between the progressive, cosmopolitan perception which accepts a multicultural society, and fundamentalism, which approaches those who are different with fear and enmity and promotes racism and xenophobia. This is why the European Union needs to be given legal armour and to speed up the procedures to complete a common area of freedom, security and justice for everyone living on the territory of the European Union. Once the directive has been adopted by the Council, we hope that the Member States will quickly give immediate priority: first, to judicial cooperation and harmonisation of their criminal legislation; secondly, to instructing state agencies and employers on how to apply the directive to all natural and legal persons; thirdly, to applying the 1997 Charter of the European Political Parties on the defence of fundamental rights and the fight against all forms of racial violence; fourthly, to the right of individual victims of discrimination to take collective action; fifthly, to guaranteeing the access of minorities to vocational training, employment, health services and national insurance and pension schemes and their participation in economic, social, political and cultural life. We still need public awareness campaigns on direct and indirect discrimination, to monitor the application of the Community institutional framework and to formulate our immigration policy on the basis of the principles which govern this extremely important directive.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am glad that this matter has been raised, but I had intended raising it in the Bureau of Parliament, which is the correct procedure. Perhaps we should have a discussion within the Bureau as to how we could properly structure this type of debate in the future. It was not satisfactory yesterday. We over-ran our time by five minutes. As Mr Sturdy has said, the Commissioner spoke for 29 minutes and Members only had six minutes in which to put questions. It was a ridiculous situation that we must try to rectify.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report’s recitals maintain that “high oil prices and price fluctuations affect the poorer sectors of the population disproportionately”. The explanatory statement also states that price increases are basically the result of speculation. All the other factors, however, demonstrate the self-inflicted powerlessness of the European institutions, and indeed of the Member States, to intervene. Each speculative price increase represents a huge levy imposed by some oil groups and capitalist middlemen on the population, including the poorest sections, who pay directly or indirectly. With regard to the Member States, not only do they fail to intervene to put a stop to these increases, they also profit from them through fuel taxes, which is yet another indirect tax, as unfair as VAT, because it hits the richest and the poorest in the same way. It is untrue that the public authorities could not ban price increases. It is untrue that they cannot abolish tax on fuel for personal use. The Commission is incapable of taking the measures that are required and is content to reel off hollow phrases. We have therefore voted against this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, with reference to the amendment to Paragraph 21a, I propose that the words ‘and armed opposition forces which continue to recruit child soldiers’ be added after the words ‘strongly condemns governments’, in order to condemn governments and armed oppositions which make use of child soldiers. (The President established that there were no objections to the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(3) on Chechnya (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(4) on preparations for the 5th World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference (Cancun, Mexico, 10-14 September 2003) Before the vote on Amendment No 5:

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the recent Euro-African Summit in Cairo has made poverty one of our central concerns. As the author of the general report on poverty approved in the Bahamas by the EU-ACP Joint Assembly a few months ago, I would like to say that the fight against poverty must become one of our objectives and, in many cases, our main objective. In this context, education, together with health, is the tool with which we can implement an ambitious programme to win the fight against poverty in the world. Education is a universal human right and the key to sustainable human development. It is the basic responsibility of the States and, above all, an achievable objective if we mobilise the necessary resources. For this reason, we are supporting this initiative and we urge the Commission to mobilise the necessary budgetary and economic resources and to adopt the relevant institutional initiatives so that this objective may be achieved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I welcome Mrs Schreyer's statement to the effect that sustainable development is a focus of attention, and hope that it really will be possible to promote it even with these deficits, by which I mean the unused appropriations, which will, next year, be subject to the N+2 rule. We know that the deficits are primarily the result of long drawn-out problems with approval, but also of the Member States' inability to really create proper programmes out of the reform measures contained in the last reform of the Structural Funds; this obliged the Commission to follow matters up any number of times. Both, then, are to blame. There is now the danger of big projects being supported because there is suddenly more money, and for that reason I warn the Commission against allowing that. There are indications that projects will again be supported without their being either efficient or sustainable, and I would ask the Commission to exercise its monitoring functions and ensure that sustainable development becomes a reality in the budget.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against terrorism is an absolute necessity, the legitimacy of which should not be questioned or we could see our democracies collapse. However, under no circumstances should it serve as a pretext for gagging our fundamental rights and democratic freedoms. How can we justify a European proposal to combat terrorism if no added value can be gained from it? Under the current legislation of the Member States, perpetrators of attacks could not go unpunished. As the public enemy number one is terrorism, why not limit the European arrest warrant to terrorist offences? If the illegal capture of State or government facilities, public modes of transport, infrastructures or public places constitutes a terrorist offence or if the legitimate expression of our freedoms of expression and association, our trade union rights, could, in the future, be criminalised or described as terrorism, if those elements are retained, by voting in favour of these reports we will be renouncing all of our democratic rights. An explicit guarantee of these rights and freedoms must be included in this proposal for a framework directive. Our fears also extend to certain offences that could fall under the warrant, as the criterion used is that of the sentence, while the accused persons may deserve protection, for example if they are migrants or asylum seekers. Even those giving support to those people would, in the future, become guilty of terrorism. A minimum degree of harmonisation of Member States’ criminal procedures is necessary in order to safeguard the principle of equality before the law and guarantee the protection of rights in the principle of collegiality. Furthermore, as minors cannot be the subjects of an arrest warrant, their description for criminal purposes also needs to be harmonised. If we are to establish an area of security, freedom and justice, these three dimensions need to be fully effective. Unfortunately, we observe that the security aspect is dominating the policies of the Union and the Member States. The fight against terrorism needs to be reflected in security for all residents, without exception and in total respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Finally, if a new text has to be adopted by the Council in the future, we hope that this House will be consulted once again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I must refute what Mr Brok said. A number of compromises were made and we respected those compromises, except in two cases where there are problems, as we sometimes find when we take compromises back to our various groups. I proposed a solution in both cases. In this case, we informed your services yesterday that we would not be signing that compromise amendment. Thus, it should never have been tabled in our name. It may have been a compromise between the and the EPP Groups, but it was not a compromise which we signed. - before the final vote

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, there are two issues arising from Mr Mulder's superb report that I would like to briefly address. The first is that of recovery. Here we see the sum of some EUR 3 billion mounting up, and the amount of money outstanding keeps increasing. The recovery rate for 2000-2001 has been halved, down to some EUR 40 million. Something is wrong here. It is not working. This is not right. I believe I am right in saying that our recovery rate has not even reached 16 %. My second point, Commissioner, has to do with the implementation of IACS in Greece and, in future, in the candidate countries. This is a highly political question and not just one of whether or not maladministration has been brought to light there. How are we to get the new Member States, soon to be joining us, to believe that they have to introduce an IACS system, if there are old Member States that have simply failed for years on end to implement one? Politically speaking, that is just not on. At some point they will say to you, ‘Come back in ten years, Mr Fischler. We will have introduced it by the time the Greeks do.’ And that, of course, as far as budgetary exactitude is concerned, is where we end up on very treacherous ice. That is why it is important that we bring pressure to bear on the last Member State of the present Union, telling them that they must introduce this system, or else things will go wrong in connection with enlargement. We know, for example, that in Poland, a major case of fraud has come to light in the run-up to the introduction of IACS, but I mention that only in passing. Let me repeat: this is a highly political question, and one that cannot be reduced simply to maladministration. Commissioner, it is one that we have to get to grips with together.

Political group: PSE