GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his reply. I was alerted to this issue of age discrimination in the Council at our previous part-session when I was asked what I thought. My immediate reaction was that, while on the one hand we are trying to encourage fairer treatment of older workers, yet, on the other hand, in one of our own EU institutions – and from what the minister said in more than one – we are discriminating against those aged 45 and over. It is a sad state of affairs when those aged 45 are not considered for employment. What talent, knowledge and experience is lost because of this! I should like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council what measures are being taken to treat all job applications equally? It was interesting to hear about the inter-institutional recruitment office. What is the time-scale for its creation and what common rules will all institutions have? I just wish to clarify something you said. The base age has been raised by six years. Does that mean it has been raised to 51 or has 39 been raised to 45?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commissioner is working under the constraints of the undemocratic and anachronistic Euratom Treaty. Despite this, would you, Commissioner, accept the need for the European Parliament to give an opinion on the two directives and communication which you are presenting to us, particularly on whether or not the case for deep-level storage of highly radioactive waste has been proved? This is contrary to the views of the British Royal Society, which finds that the scientific case has not been made.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as former Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and as it was under my chairmanship that this very issue was debated, I asked if I could be the last to speak on this subject. I would like to make it quite clear that, from the very outset, the Committee on Legal Affairs considered this matter to be a legal issue of enormous political significance, since it dealt with Parliament’s prerogatives and the inter-institutional balance. Having said this, from the very beginning, the Committee on Legal Affairs was extremely aware that the priority in this case was not to hinder the entry into force of this directive, which had been under discussion for thirty years and, in fact, the decision made by this Committee specifically requests that, in the event of a decision being taken to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, the outcome of this would be upheld, even if our decision were overruled. In saying this, Mr President, I am expressing my respect and understanding for the fact that the decision that has been taken at this time – which appears to reflect the majority opinion in this House – responds to the concerns of the Committee on Legal Affairs. I would even go further than the comments made by some of my fellow Members. In this case, if the European Parliament does not refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, it will be showing a greater degree of political responsibility. Because although it is not giving up the defence of its prerogatives, it understands that there is an immediate greater value in postponing the referral of this matter to the Court. I believe that the European Council declarations will strengthen our position, and not only the Barcelona Council but also the Intergovernmental Conference, and it is to be hoped that we can put an end to the imbalance in legal bases which has arisen as a result of this situation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since I have not had the chance to engage in a proper political debate on the Commission’s actions, I will use this one meagre minute to express my disappointment with the Commission’s actions, which should be criticised in three areas, to my mind. The first area is budgetary policy and the Commission’s ongoing inflexibility in interpreting the criteria of the Stability Pact. This runs counter to the interests of the European economy and stands in the way of economic recovery. The second cause for complaint is linked to the inflexibility of this Commission’s actions with regard to competition policy, an inflexibility which is impervious to industrial logic and the interests of European industry. The third reason is linked to the Commission’s behaviour regarding the Intergovernmental Conference: while all those who champion the draft Constitution are closing ranks to defend it, the Commission has proposed a renegotiation of that draft Constitution at the Intergovernmental Conference. I am disappointed with the Commission, which has ceased to be the driving force behind Europe and become a burden, but I will now stop criticising it!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the historic decision taken by the Copenhagen Council will doubtless help to restore the unity of Europe lost after the war. The accession of central and eastern European countries, together with Cyprus and Malta, is another step in the evolutionary process of the unique phenomenon we refer to as European integration and I should like to congratulate both the Danish presidency and the Commission and Commissioner Verheugen on their successful handling of the entire process. I do not have much time so I will make just two comments. First of all, because of the economic and financial repercussions of enlargement as the result of the accession of new Member States, the Union will have to be bold in adjusting its financial perspectives if they are to meet the demands both of enlargement and of its citizens and make an effective contribution to the stability and cohesion of the societies of the Member States, especially the new Member States. Secondly, I should like to comment on the accession of Cyprus and, more particularly, the atmosphere surrounding the Copenhagen Council. It seems to me that the Council satisfied all of us because it showed that Europe can manage its affairs both wisely and decisively, taking as its criterion the construction of a healthy, democratic structure in which human rights and the proper values of human society are respected. We must not, however, forget that a solution to the problem still needs to be found and that Copenhagen was unable to find one because the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot leaders refused to focus on a solution. We must now make every effort and do all we can to bring about the integration of the whole island within the next two months. However, I would point out that the solution to the Cyprus problem, however badly needed, must keep the fundamental principles of the Treaties of the European Union intact. Any derogations from the acquis communautaire, any transitional arrangements included in the solution to the Cyprus problem must not leave factors which violate basic principles of the European Union behind once they expire. I call on the European Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to keep a close watch to ensure that the solution does in fact abide by the Treaties of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
The point I should like to make to the Minister is that there is a huge contradiction where Turkey is concerned. On the one hand, it allows huge numbers of migrants to pass through it and, on the other, a stream of political refugees from Turkey itself or from other countries but who are open to prosecution in Turkey, such as Iraqi Kurds who might be prosecuted for their activities in Turkey, is turning up in Greece. How can these two things be reconciled? By which I mean making Turkey stop, with the possible refoulement of immigrants entering the Community illegally via Greece, while at the same time protecting all those seeking political asylum, given that Turkey is a country which practises the death penalty and, as we saw in the Commission's progress report yesterday, a country in which democracy is sorely lacking?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is a very important matter that we discuss tonight, as Mr Bolkestein said. He urged us, in his closing words, to make sure that we modernise and simplify European Community law and endow it with appropriate flexibility. With this I believe we can all agree. The issue is: which exact text will best achieve that? To establish the general orientation of the Group of the , we thought that the Commission's original proposal was unduly timid and grudging on points such as the environmental and social points. We, and others in Parliament, urged a broader and more generous view – the one that was in due course confirmed by the Court of Justice in the Helsinki tramways case. That was a real advance. It was not just our view, but Parliament's view at first reading. Then we have the common position. To us, the common position seems to be in some measure a retreat from the high-water mark represented by Parliament's first reading position. We would like to see some aspects of that retreat again reversed. I accept Mr Bolkestein's point that the text, as it came to us from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, is internally inconsistent. I would put that down to the fact that in committee we had an unstable and varying majority, which meant that there was no clear golden thread running through the text that came from the committee. But there is a way of restoring it to consistency, coherence and environmental and social sensibility, which is to adopt the string of amendments, which will pull it back towards Parliament's first reading position and again exhort the Council and the Commission to take a bold step that will continue to serve these valuable goals of modernisation, simplification and flexibility. My own group will put forward two amendments in particular relating to Article 53 where, for example, we will object to the idea that it must be a tender most economically advantageous for the contracting authorities. We are told that sometimes social or environmental criteria are vague. That seems to be fraught with vagueness – the insistence that it be, as it were, self-referentially back to the authority which is contracting. That would give rise to all manner of disputes. Leave it as we suggest: various criteria linked to the subject of the public contract in question. Do not leave out characteristics, including those relating to production methods or the tender as equal-treatment policy. If these are unacceptably vague then the whole of Community law is unacceptably vague because we are exhorted in the horizontal clauses of the Treaties to attend to these very values! Let us be brave! Let us go forward, colleagues! Let us restore the kinds of values that we asserted in the first reading position. Let us get rid of the inconsistencies, but let us get rid of them in the right direction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, notwithstanding the Commissioner's comments earlier today about her eyesight, I have decided to move forward in this rather vast auditorium so that I can at least see her for this evening's debate. Two years ago we approved the National Emissions Ceilings Directive and the Ozone in Ambient Air Directive, for which I was rapporteur. The former, in particular, set ambitious and legally binding targets for reductions in pollution and improvements in air quality. Before us now is a measure requiring the paint industry to make changes in its production methods which will help ensure that these targets are met, at least with regard to the reduction in volatile organic compounds – one of the precursors of ozone pollution. It is, as far as I am concerned – and I agree with the Commissioner – very definitely a measure that should address primarily the issue of air pollution rather than that of health problems associated with those who use paints. MEPs have been lobbied extensively by industry which, for the most part, wants less stringent restrictions on the use of VOCs than are proposed, and by environmentalists who argue the opposite case. I am pleased that in committee we had 110 votes and the Liberal Democrats were on the winning side in 103 of these, striking the balance between the two alternative views. In judging the conflicting amendments- I as a mere politician have in general put my trust in the Commission's air quality experts. I have been criticised by allegedly greener Members for doing this and for not being sufficiently ambitious by supporting the target limits proposed in the Annex. I have worked with the Commission's air quality experts on the ozone matter and I can assure the House that I did not find them unambitious – quite the opposite. On reflection, I have decided not to support amendments to raise the boiling point defining VOCs to 280°C, but to stick with the ecolabel standards. However, if the Commission can propose a modification or a derogation that allows the continuation of the rather good B[amp]Q labelling scheme in Britain, I would welcome some proposals along those lines. Finally, some of those environmentalists within the NGOs, who have called in effect for the complete abolition of solvent-based paints within just a couple of years, should go and spend a little time working in industry and return with a more balanced perspective. Environmentally speaking, I want us to move forward quickly but I am conscious that lemmings can move forward quickly and I do not want European industry to have to emulate them.

Political group: ELDR
We consider that the European institutions are infinitely more concerned with representing the interests of capital than those of the people in general and the working classes in particular. Consequently we shall not adopt a stance on enlargement. It is our conviction that the future belongs to a Europe without frontiers between peoples unified from one end of the continent to the other and freed from the de facto power of industrial and financial groups, this being an essential condition for the people to have real control over their institutions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
It is well known that we are against the creation of ‘European political parties’ or other forms of organisation with supranational characteristics, since going down this path clearly means one more step towards a strengthening of the federalist orientation of the European Union and foreshadows predictable measures to this end. Although this European parties' initiative is presented as a way of getting round the criticism from the Court of Auditors regarding the financing of political groups in the European Parliament, it has really been imposed by the dominant forces in the European Union without there being any real support for the creation of such ‘European parties’, since the Treaty of Nice has not yet even been ratified by any national parliament in a Member State. Lastly, mention must also be made of our disagreement in principle with countless points included in the current proposal, specifically the criteria for their formation and funding possibilities.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have voted in favour of the report aimed at establishing a European Prosecutor. It is important that there be a supranational prosecutor able to protect the EU’s financial interests. The present system too often leads to problems due to the Member States’ having different rules. A European Prosecutor is therefore needed who can be effective in combating fraud directed against the EU’s financial interests. It is still too early to express an opinion on the precise rules that should apply to this prosecutor, but we are encouraged by the fact that the debate has begun. It is important right now, however, to emphasise that the EU’s prosecuting office must only devote itself to protecting the EU’s financial interests, and nothing over and above that.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to expressly thank Mr Belder for his report. Racism, xenophobia and antisemitism are a depressing problem, including within the European Union. Fighting them is one of the common goals of almost every political group in this House. This House is prepared to exercise diplomatic restraint in many areas, but not on this question. And rightly so. Mr Belder knows that I and the committee wished to quote the specifics of individual problems in candidate countries. A number of proposed amendments by Baroness Ludford attempt to rectify this and I shall support them. The way in which the social causes of racism in candidate countries and the highly significant social and employment policy consequences of a consistent anti-racist policy have been dealt with appears to me to be too general. The fact that Mr Belder was prepared to clearly address the question of antisemitism is one of the most important results of the discussion process and I again extend my thanks to Mr Belder. Leafing through the various positions of the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the Vienna Monitoring Centre, one is struck by the fact that antisemitism is quoted as a particular and particularly dangerous form of racism in several headlines, but only in the headlines. There is almost a total lack of analytical appraisal or special programmes to combat it. And as far as the Commission programmes in the candidate countries are concerned, Commissioner, the word “almost” can be dispensed with. I consider this an unacceptable oversight and I therefore refer this question to you specifically. Antisemitism is, without doubt, widespread; often it is latent, which complicates the issue. This morning in this House we were witness to one of its most repulsive forms, when the age-old assertion that the Jews themselves are responsible for antisemitism was repeated. This debate should therefore be a separate and very, very specific task for us and the Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if the problem about sounding the bell is that the sitting has to resume first, the solution is quite simple. I propose to the President that we suspend the sitting for two minutes. For it is unacceptable... (Protests) ... that for reasons purely of protocol the number of Members in the Chamber has decreased by about 60, which makes it extremely difficult to adopt amendments that will affect the health of European consumers for generations to come. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Allow me perhaps to correct the Commissioner on one point: Parliament would probably have wanted to see a greater degree of harmonisation where the current directive is concerned. I have, however, a question for those of you responsible for the internal market. You said that existing differences in levy systems were of no significance. I believe that we need to investigate this area specifically with the internal market in mind. Are the differences in the levy systems between the countries of Europe of any significance? Do they impede the internal market and lead to distortion? I believe that our examination of the trend we have in Europe should start specifically from the perspective of a functioning internal market. I believe it would be important to obtain an account of the ways in which fair compensation or fair remuneration have developed. What are the facts of the case? Above all, I wish, however, to say to you, as Commissioner with responsibility for the internal market, that I believe that the differences in levies affect consumer behaviour and create unequal conditions of competition.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, yesterday the President of the European Convention ended his speech by evoking the future European slogan: united in diversity. This inevitably leads to the conclusion, therefore, that in the debate on this report and on future Commission policies in the area of linguistic diversity, we are dealing with an issue which is not just highly topical, but which is at the very heart of the European project. So congratulations on this good report. Allow me to comment, however, on a single area of concern: as a Catalan speaker, I am aware of the existence in Europe of languages spoken by millions of people which are not thought of as being minority languages or regional languages and which – despite having official status within their autonomous region – are not state languages and are therefore not languages with official status in the European Union. To deal with the problem of the institutionalisation, the status and the function of these European languages is perhaps the fundamental key to deciding whether the policy of a future European agency for linguistic diversity or the policy on the European institutions is really going to be faithful to the slogan of the future constitutional Union: united in diversity.

Political group: PSE
Thank you very much, Mr Frattini, for the speed and clarity of your reply. But, apart from thanking you for the information, the supplementary question I would like to put is as follows: when the sad and reprehensible death sentences – which we also condemn – were passed in Cuba by the Cuban Government and by Cuban courts, everybody criticised and condemned – including the European Council – that action by the Cuban Government; so why, in the situation where families of Cuban prisoners cannot see the prisoners imprisoned in Florida, which is a violation of all human rights, do you not behave in the same way as in the case in March and concern yourselves with human rights, whoever is suffering these deprivations and violations of human rights?

Political group: GUE-NGL
We Moderates believe that drug dependence needs to be combated vigorously. Politicians and authorities must therefore emphasise clearly that every form of drug dependence is unacceptable. We do not accept measures proposed in the report that may make it easier to use certain drugs. So-called harm reduction is in danger of becoming a gateway to drug dependence on the part of young people, rather than a safety measure. We are also against syringe exchange programmes, because they may be interpreted in terms of authorities’ and care institutions’ consent to the misuse of injections. The report does not comply with the guidelines in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. It is the Member States whose task it is themselves to develop forms of treatment within the health care services that deal with addiction. The EU’s task is, instead, to prevent drug dependence by means of coordinated efforts to combat crime involving, for example, the import and smuggling of drugs into the EU. We Moderates are therefore voting against the above report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today I would have liked to have approved the Commission without any reservations. Unfortunately, however, I have to register a reservation by abstaining since, although there are good Commissioners – Mrs Schreyer and Mrs Wallström have convinced me – I must say that I found the interventions of Mr Prodi more than disappointing. I do not consider it enough that he only presented declarations of intent, when really what he should have been talking about was the direction in which the reforms in the European Union are heading. For me, there were too many fine words, too little of substance and, therefore, through my abstention, I wanted to express my feeling that this is not enough and that over the next few years, the Commission must succeed in carrying out its promises as far as possible and not stand still on its words. Hopefully, Mr Prodi will then succeed in becoming a stronger figure within this European Union. Let me make it clear that I have not voted with a “no”, I would have preferred to give my approval with an unequivocal “yes”, yet I found Mr Prodi’s statement too disappointing.

Political group: Verts-ALE