GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, firstly, has the IGC been a failure? Surely it is just a reflection of current opinion at government level about the structure and implementation of a new EU Constitution. The lack of unanimity reflects divisions that are real within Member States, divisions which are too readily dismissed and which perhaps have been too readily dismissed in this particular debate. To me the question is where we go from here. Is it an issue on which we have a realistic prospect of seeing progress during the course of the Irish presidency? Sweden said at the end of the IGC that it is a matter that could probably not come back before the Council until 2005, and others have talked about it not coming back for at least two years. I say to the President-in-Office that he should dismiss much of what he has heard in the more recent speeches, not least from Mr Watson, the leader of the . Mr Watson was up to his sanctimonious best during the course of what I regarded as a number of cheap shots against the President-in-Office of the Council. The President-in-Office might like to know that when he was endeavouring to reach agreement in the IGC on Friday, Mr Watson had his name on the front page of the Murdoch press arguing in the United Kingdom for a referendum on the outcome of these constitutional talks. That was just a day after all his members had voted against a referendum here in this House. That inconsistency is something that we have come to recognise from Mr Watson. (Applause from the right) It is worth reflecting that the President of the , Mr Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, has recognised what he believes the route forward should be. He said that perhaps we in Europe need to move away from this introspective constitutional debate, as it has taken up too much time and energy; and that what we need to focus on are the issues that matter to our European citizens, such as jobs and growth, the environment, human rights and quality of life. He says that we need to get closer to the citizens we were elected to serve. These are remarks he made on the BBC broadcasting in the United Kingdom. They may not be said when he comes to speak to Mr Barón Crespo's group here. However, I welcome the fact that Mr Cook has endorsed the approach I have adopted in almost every debate we have held in relation to this constitutional issue. There is much that is contained within the draft Constitution with which I take issue. This is not the occasion to revisit that area. But all of us should be committed to the prospect of getting back in touch with what matters to our constituents; and I would just remind everyone that we face them in June of next year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the relevance that employees and citizens give to European social policy is being distorted further with each passing day, because of numerous cases of restructurings and redundancies. The revision of the Directive on European Works Councils is obviously a crucial way of clawing back this credibility. So what do the employees who are victims of these restructurings have to say about the possibility of using this directive? To take some examples, they say that the current legislation on the right to information and consultation is flouted on a regular basis by companies, due to the lack of precise definitions for these terms, that they have no administrative and judicial support which is needed in order to check compliance with the directive, that the directive only applies in very restricted circumstances and is not at all applicable in many transnational companies with numbers of employees lower than the current threshold, that it is inconceivable that authorisations for mergers are granted when the only criterion to be fulfilled is that of observing the competition law and that the social, regional or environmental impact of mergers is not taken into account, that they are powerless when mergers are taking place, during which previous consultation procedures are no longer used, since new procedures have yet to be set up, and, finally, that they are disgusted to see that the same companies which undertake these severe restructurings have occasionally received assistance from the Structural Funds. In my view, Mr Menrad’s report, which is the result of work that was carried out in an open, cooperative spirit, involving the social actors concerned and members of the Commission, which organised a broad public hearing on this issue, recommends bridging these gaps with a precise definition of information and consultation, by reducing, as proposed, the thresholds of employees required to establish a works council, by requesting that specific premises for consultation are maintained during mergers, by requesting that decisions made and which flout procedures can be overturned, and by introducing sanctions, including financial, for companies at fault and finally, by taking into account the opinion of employees and providing evidence that the procedures of the directive have been observed, prior to giving authorisations to mergers. Within this context, these proposals have the support of our group. Obviously, we still need to ensure – and this requires a combined effort – that the directive is revised quickly and effectively.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having been the President of the Europe­Israel delegation under Netanyahu, today, following the election of Ehud Barak, I wish to express how pleased I am to see the peace process under way again. Barak made the promise; now, he is keeping his promise. As we say in French, let us not deny ourselves this pleasure, let us salute Israeli democracy. But at the same time, let us not be deceived. It will not be easy, none of it will be easy. There will no doubt be crises, deadlocks, and I wish to say today that it is necessary, and it will, in future, be necessary, to trust the negotiators and, perhaps, within this Parliament, undertake in future months not to proliferate resolutions which offer little instruction, at every hitch along the way. I shall end by expressing a second wish. It is that the European Union should cease to be a mere provider of funds and should take on a real political role in the Middle East. Perhaps the Commissioner and the Council President will tell us how it may find the means to do that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Patten has our understanding. I would like to tell him that communications with Madrid are usually more fluid and, therefore, I hope to see him there soon. The statements we have heard today on the Middle East peace process are very opportune at the moment because of the hurried tour which Minister Gama – whose absence from this debate I also regret – has made of the region, accompanied by other Council representatives. The tone of the news in the media on the recent events in the area could lead us to take a pessimistic view of the situation. I honestly believe that an evaluation of this type would not be in accordance with the reality of that situation. In this sense, I share Commissioner Patten’s positive attitude. Let me explain: it is true that the Israeli Government has delayed the third hand-over of West Bank territory to the Palestinian authorities. It is also true, however, that, since the signing of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreements, 39% of the territory of the West Bank has been handed over to the Palestinian National Authority, together with two thirds of the Gaza Strip and, more importantly, this agreement has so far been scrupulously complied with, since, under the terms laid down in Sharm el-Sheikh, the Israeli Government has the right to delay that handover. This is naturally on the condition that the delay does not exceed three weeks, as Prime Minister Barak has promised. On the other hand, the decision to delay the second round of talks, initiated in Shepherdstown by the Syrian Arab Republic, is undoubtedly significant, but I am convinced that the hopes which were raised on 3 January in that town will not be dashed. Mr President, the fact that the different groups in this Parliament are tabling a motion for a resolution, in this ever controversial debate, which is the result of a broad consensus, seems to me to demonstrate the clear political will to decisively support open peace processes. I would therefore like, equally firmly, to express our rejection of the use of violence to resolve differences, which are still no doubt profound, between the parties. In my judgement, this constitutes a guarantee to both sides, both from a political and a financial point of view, of the commitment they can expect from the European Union in terms of its contribution to the cost of the peace which we all long for. It is clear to everyone that this is essential to guaranteeing security in the area and to cooperating in the development which is needed to heal the serious social differences which exist. But this also serves to make a claim, on the part of the European Union, for a degree of political participation in the process which is consistent with its economic contribution – we do not have aspirations to be bankers – and which will be suitably visible to the public. There is absolutely no doubt that the forthcoming trip by the President of the European Parliament to the region will contribute to this.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have today voted in favour of the Watson report. We agree that the EU should establish minimum standards for procedures employed in the Member States for allocating and removing refugee status. We are nonetheless alert to the fact that the directive is covered by Title IV of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and does not apply to Denmark, cf. the protocol on Denmark’s position.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I fully support Mr Morillon’s excellent work, as presented by him and supplemented by Mr Swoboda. I do not therefore intend to repeat arguments which I accept overall. However, I should like to make a few comments. The strange nature of relations between the European Union and Turkey, which we have experienced for many years, from the beginning and throughout, is due to the political problem which we call Turkey. Thus, 9-10 months ago, Helsinki set a procedure in motion, essentially with an eye to resolving the problem which we call Turkey. In this sense, and because Commissioner Verheugen, the Commissioner responsible for enlargement, is here with us, and given that there is a whole atmosphere surrounding the text which will shape the partnership between the European Union and Turkey, a text which we shall receive at a later date, I am certain that he will advocate incorporating everything included in the Helsinki resolutions on human rights, on Cyprus, on the Aegean and on crises in the text of the Treaty rather than in the preamble. Take a look at Turkey. It is a law unto itself. It radiates crisis on every side. Those of us who live in the region are sick and tired of crises. It is because of its political system that Turkey radiates these crises. We recently heard statements by Turkish-Cypriots in Cyprus, who have at last come forward and condemned Turkey as an occupying force. Only yesterday on the BBC I heard the head of a party of Turkish-Cypriots – Turkish-Cypriots, not settlers – half of whom have remained in Cyprus, appealing to the Turks to let them join the European Union. Turkey wanted to join and he felt that it should let them join earlier. In this sense, given that these relations gamble with the political face of Europe and with Europe’s prospects and principles, I am certain that Commissioner Verheugen will want to assure us that the Commission, as the guardian of these principles, intends to base the integration process for Turkey firmly on these principles. And I think that the main issue is precisely this process and this road. Because I do not think, Mr Verheugen, that we can all agree to vote for parliaments, to vote for governments, on the one hand, and yet still have military rule dictating political terms on behalf of us all on the other. From this viewpoint, the Morillon proposal is an encouraging prospect. We, as Greeks, want Turkey in the European Union, we want a democratic Turkey, because a democratic Turkey will be the beginning of the end of crises in the region as a whole, crises which we have lived with for many, many years and from which none of us has profited.

Political group: PSE
I was not in favour of the two recent ballots on the calendar of sessions 2003. I voted in favour of both amendments 1 and 3 for the self-evident reasons that Brussels is a far better place to conduct our business economically and efficiently than Strasbourg. I will always vote to reflect that view and try to end the mindless and expensive perigrinations around Europe that John Major's government imposed on the Parliament at the Edinburgh Summit in 1992.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Olympic Charter and its fundamental principles stress that Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. It is therefore crucial that these fundamental principles embrace respect for core labour standards in the production of sports articles for the Olympic Games. Today, in the context of such production, the failure to respect labour law as laid down by the International Labour Organisation has been observed. Several factors indicate that many sports articles are produced by subcontracting firms which, through their improper conditions of work and employment, breach not only labour law, but also human rights. They do so by failing to respect humane working hours, by not giving their employees a safe and healthy workplace and, in addition, by providing nothing like decent and reasonable remuneration. Again, the problems relating to child labour might also be cause for reflection. We also call on the sports industry to be vigilant in tackling this unfortunate state of affairs, which it is greatly responsible for and party to, and we call on it to adopt and respect, as quickly as possible, a genuine code of good ethical conduct, aimed at increasing human dignity.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, there is an arrangement with the Socialist Party that Recital G should be deleted and that it should be part of a package including Amendment No 7. Now that Amendment No 7 has been approved, the deletion of Recital G should be approved.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Hautala for a good piece of work. If it had only depended upon herself, the result could certainly have been still better, but we have to be able to live with compromises, and these are important steps that are now being taken to move closer to equality in Europe. The right to equal conditions at the workplace is a fundamental right and should go without saying. That is unfortunately not the case. The issue is one of human dignity and of avoiding harassment, something with which everyone ought to agree. In spite of this, we know that many women in Europe are at present exposed to sexual harassment on a daily basis. A genuine change in attitude is needed, but also clear and vigorous legislation if we are to create equal opportunities in working life. The present values also lead to large discrepancies in salaries between men and women. I nonetheless think it is important to say that equal opportunities for men and women are not in actual fact only a women’s issue. It is an issue that affects us all, irrespective of our gender. Rights are needed which make it possible for both mothers and fathers to combine professional and family life. Maternity and paternity leave must obviously be brought into line with each other. My own experience teaches that equality must begin in the home. I sometimes think that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities does not do enough to include us men in its view of equality. I think that that is a pity and is in danger of delaying more resolute work for equality within the European Union. I should like to conclude by saying that I feel dissatisfied with Amendment 7. I do not think that the wording goes far enough. Every mother and father must be entitled to return to her or his own work after parental leave. I emphasise his or her own work. The wording, work of equal value is not enough, for there is then a risk of employers less conscious of their responsibilities exploiting this opportunity to create worse conditions for parental leave. Unfortunately, there are many such examples in my own country, too. I should therefore have liked to have seen clearer wording. Allow me an additional ten seconds – given that Mrs Lulling was given an extra two minutes – and allow me to say to the latter that my marriage would never have survived if my wife and I had not shared the parental leave equally. In view of the fact that Mrs Lulling spoke so clearly, all of us in this House understand that Amendment 17 will of course be supported by Mrs Lulling, and for that I am very grateful. Thank you.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, since July 1997, the European Parliament has been a staunch defender of the autonomy of Hong Kong under the 'one-country two-systems' policy. In pursuit of this policy, we have worked constructively with the Hong Kong administration, reflected by the attendance of the former Chief Secretary Anson Chan and her successor, Donald Tsang, at meetings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. It is therefore appropriate that we should continue to monitor developments which could in any way undermine the autonomy of Hong Kong and threaten fundamental freedoms. Enactment of legislation under Article 23 has raised such concerns. While I welcome the personal guarantee given by Chief Secretary Donald Tsang that he will not allow the freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong citizens to be undermined, this must be reflected in the proposed legislation. Last weekend, a large demonstration in Hong Kong illustrated the genuine concerns that Article 23 laws could undermine existing human rights and civil and religious liberties. I share these concerns and I urge the Hong Kong SAR Government to address them in the final proposals that they bring forward. In particular, the new laws must not violate the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, nor must they in any way undermine the independence of the Hong Kong courts and their right to exercise the power of final jurisdiction. The reinterpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress during the right-of-abode case is still fresh in many people's minds. There must not be a repeat of this with regard to Article 23 issues. I would ask the Hong Kong authorities to take note of this debate, to take note of this resolution, especially our request for the publication of a draft bill which should be subject to further consultation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, we could vote for the seven amendments en bloc, but I would like to propose an oral amendment in relation to Amendment No 4. According to the Spanish version, the proposed oral amendment only changes three words: in the first line, where it says ‘the Community will establish a legal basis for future contributions’, it should say, ‘the Commission should propose a legal basis for future contributions’, and so on until the end. According to the Spanish version, no greater modifications are necessary, but the problem is that the compromise text we negotiated with the Council was in English and in that version it would be necessary to make two modifications: in the first line, it would be the same modification which I mentioned for the Spanish, that is: ‘The Commission should propose’, instead of ‘The Community will establish’, and in the last line it should say ‘on the three communicable diseases, including any further contributions to the Global Fund’. Those are the two modifications I would propose to the English version.

Political group: PPE-DE
I thought the Council was going to say again that this is not its responsibility. I still totally disagree with the Council's position on the last question. In relation to China I would hope that the Council would take a position which reflects the position of Parliament: the only democratically-elected institution within the European Union. Clearly there is a major problem with the lifting of the arms embargo on China, particularly in the light of what has happened in recent years. I would hope that the Council will take this issue very seriously and not give in to pressure, despite the fact that there may be some countries in the European Union that would wish to do so. I hope that the Council will not give in to this. The arms embargo should remain in place until we can see a justification for lifting it. I do not think there will be a justification, because arms embargoes are a good idea on all countries internationally.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is certainly correct to say, Mr Verheugen, that the chapter has not been completed, but negotiations have started. However what I am interested in is this: Have transitional arrangements in the area of the free movement of services been applied for during these negotiations? You know, I am from a border region and I know exactly what the situation is on the ground. I am convinced that medium-sized companies and the craft industry will face huge problems and enormous challenges when it comes to the free movement of services, because there is a huge wage differential of 1:10 at present. You yourself know full well which industries are affected. Is there any intention on the European side to apply for transitional arrangements in the area of the free movement of services? The Czech Republic has already applied for transition periods for the acquisition of land by foreigners and this will have an impact on services. What is your position on the transition periods which the Czech Republic has applied for and what is the Commission’s position in general on this point?

Political group: PPE-DE