GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in her speech before the House this morning, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel expressed her amazement and alarm at the frequency with which this issue comes up in this House, and wondered why this is. I too am amazed at how often it crops up. We are concerned at the tragic implications of industrial restructuring and mergers – of which the workers are all too often only informed at the last minute when all the decisions have been made – for unemployment, working conditions, the very competitiveness of Community businesses and economic cohesion, and we appeal to companies' sense of responsibility and express our sympathy, but then we do not follow the cases up. Community legislation does not go far enough and, what is more, in many cases it is disregarded or applied too leniently. I could produce a long list, as many Members have done, of relevant cases which we have discussed in recent years. One of the objectives set by the Lisbon Council was to achieve a high level of high quality employment. How can we achieve a Europe which is both competitive and has a high level of high quality employment? Of course, this can be accomplished by improving coordination and the play of balance between the Union's different policies, but there is no doubt that the Community legislation on the subject needs to be more effective and more stringent. Therefore, we can wait no longer – and here the Commission must assume its responsibilities – for a revision of the directive on European works councils, mass redundancies and relocation of enterprises, which does not make specific provision for a system of effective penalties for failure to comply. But what really appals me – and here I refer to the Council in particular – is that it is already two years since Parliament expressed its opinion at the first reading of the only instrument which would allow us to deal effectively with these issues, the information and consultation directive, and in these two years, despite the general agreement that dialogue is the best way to deal with problems, the Council has not yet been able to summon up the courage or the strength to adopt a position on the matter. Parliament can no longer tolerate such behaviour.

Political group: PSE
It significant that the report reiterates that full employment is one of the Europe’s key objectives under its strategy for economic, employment and social policy. Nevertheless, we must also ensure that we move beyond vague statements and make genuine changes to our macroeconomic and social policies in order to make real progress towards full employment and good-quality jobs. It is also significant that the report restates the need to discourage children from dropping out of school early, by giving appropriate support to those with educational problems and raising the age for compulsory education or training to 18. At the same time we must adopt those measures needed to guarantee access to high-quality education and to training geared towards all young people, paying particular attention to lower-income families and those from the most vulnerable parts of society. This also requires sufficient budgetary appropriations, which are still not forthcoming. The report does well to state the need to reduce gender gaps with regard to employment, unemployment, pay and sectoral segregation by 50% in the Member States over the next five years. It is also crucial, however, for there to be a real improvement in good-quality jobs, in salaries and in professional development, which we have not yet seen. - Recommendation for second reading – Trakatellis (A5-0268/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. He had a really very tricky subject to deal with. My group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. As we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, Mr Sjöstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. Persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. Because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. People have mentioned to me recital A, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future EU states. Couched in such general terms, that is not correct. What is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the EU and naturally also in the candidate countries. But the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, Romania for example. On recital D: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. This, too – according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it – is not exactly true, because most firms in the SME category do not operate on a global scale. Many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. Viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. But there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: ‘Furthermore [Parliament] believes that the landfill of waste Directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the Commission to put forward a proposal for a specific Directive on mining waste.’ That can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. I believe the European mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. There must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. I believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the Landfill Directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. I have taken the liberty, Mr Sjöstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. This is concerned with extending the Seveso II Directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. I hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and I congratulate you once again on your report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner very much indeed for that extremely comprehensive answer and also for mentioning his own personal experience of the problem. I am pleased at the range of measures that he has outlined. If I could perhaps ask a couple of supplementary points: in his list of countries involved in the various studies on the Stop Programme, he did not actually mention the United Kingdom. Perhaps he could confirm whether my own Member State is involved or whether it will be brought in in the future. If not, maybe this is something that I, along with others, can do something about. Secondly, in terms of the work outlined and personal experience, particularly in relation to the issue of providing information to the parents of children – to some extent setting aside the issues I raised in my question, as it is clear from the BBC report that parents of children are being completely misled by people wishing to exploit their offspring – are there perhaps grounds for involving the EU in some sort of campaign to overcome this problem of misinforming parents, to try and tackle the issue at source.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have always been rather sceptical about moralistic or police-like attitudes that actually encourage whistle-blowing, which means that fraud is only avoided through the creation of increasingly invasive instruments used to monitor individuals. I believe that along with my group, I can give my full backing to President Napolitano’s report, because the amendment to the Rules of Procedure and the proposed decision are a serious response to the concern that Members might be subjected to excessive and arbitrary checks – a concern which has been voiced of late, most recently by Mr Dell’Alba. I think that there is no reason to delay the decision any longer. The European Parliament and its Members have a wide range of means available to defend themselves in the event of these investigations. This will clearly become easier if the internal procedures are made clearer and more transparent. We must have confidence in OLAF’s future work and make its work easier. Only in this way can we react in a credible way in the event of abuse, and react effectively to episodes like those mentioned today by Mr Theato and Mr Bösch.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the outburst of violence which rocked the region of Kabylia was, unfortunately, predictable – or even inevitable. Instead of worrying if this sort of social explosion might happen, we should have been forecasting when it would happen. The region of Kabylia is a microcosm of all the ills which beset Algeria, with its unfortunate colonial parentage, a microcosm of the national cohesion which has never quite made it and is based on democratic and legal institutions and a rule of law which have never been credibly founded. And, centre stage on this Algerian social scene, masses of young people, the life force of the nation, crammed into a few urban centres facing nothing but mass unemployment. What choice did they have other than to rebel and bemoan their fate? Are they supposed to keep quiet as well? And what policy can the Algerian government engage in other than to establish proper rule of law, starting today with committees of inquiry. Is the government supposed to turn a blind eye as well? Surely – and this is vital – it should at long last offer Algerians a real future by introducing economic reform. Otherwise, this fire will continue to smoulder beneath the surface of Algeria.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the reason for this resolution has already been explained: in Equatorial Guinea, the political and social situation is still extremely serious. Firstly, no steps have been taken to establish a constitutional state based on a multi-party democracy which fully respects human rights. Secondly, the population endures harsh conditions of poverty. The government of President Teodoro Obiang has failed to comply with each and every promise of democratisation which it made to the international community. The leaders and activists of the opposition parties face constant persecution, in the form of arbitrary arrest and sometimes torture. Of course, they have no access to the media and they have to face corrupt electoral processes, in which transparency and fair play are totally absent. With regard to the municipal elections of 28 May, there are grounds for concern, because to date there has been no guarantee of any democratic conditions for these elections. We are therefore concerned and we ask that efforts be made to observe how the elections are carried out. Guinea is sinking further and further into under-development. Paradoxically, its income, which comes from oil, is increasing, but none of it reaches the inhabitants, being entirely purloined by the ruling classes. Given this situation, as the resolution we have presented indicates, we demand that the government of Equatorial Guinea initiate a genuine transition to democracy, which we believe could begin by making these municipal elections free elections. The Union must exert pressure in this respect, and not lower its guard or accept any more false promises from President Obiang. Therefore, if the municipal elections take place in the current circumstances, with no form of guarantee, we must not resume any cooperation with Guinea, apart from purely humanitarian cooperation. Article 5 of the Lomé Convention obliges the Union and the Member States to demand democracy and human rights in Equatorial Guinea. We therefore believe that this House should follow that line.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first of all like to thank Mr Chris Davies for this report. Adoption of the Commission’s proposal and of Mr Davies's report will mean a considerable improvement in air quality for Europe's citizens. I think there are two crucial points here. The first is that the WHO’s guidelines should be adhered to. I think that this would be an important step towards preventing serious illnesses and premature deaths, especially among particularly vulnerable sectors of the population, including children. The second thing I think is very important is that specific dates should be set, both for when in 2010 we are to achieve the provisional targets and for when in 2020 we are to attain the long-term objectives. I think that setting dates is very important to our also in actual fact attaining the objectives. In addition, I should like to make a couple of remarks on the amendments inspired by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and which are intended to weaken the Commission’s initiative by allowing much greater exceedances of the WHO's recommendations and by significantly delaying efforts to achieve the targets set by the WHO. The amendments would not only impair the Commission’s proposal but also constitute a deterioration and retrograde step in relation to the situation of which we are now, in fact, aware in Europe. As Mr Davies also mentioned, standards are, in actual fact, lower than those in the United States. I do not know how one can call the proposals a happy medium or compromise, as Mr Langen did a moment ago. I think they are completely incomprehensible and irresponsible. They would involve serious health and environmental consequences for the people of Europe, together with a bill for Europe’s health services to the tune of billions. I would therefore very much recommend that we support the Commission’s proposal, together with Mr Davies’ report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, first of all I wish to associate myself with the congratulations quite rightly heaped on all those who participated in the Convention, especially Mr Méndez de Vigo and my colleague, Mrs Pervenche Berès. I should also like to emphasise, with considerable pride, the active and committed participation of Commissioner António Vitorino. I wish to focus on three points that have already been raised by other Members here this morning. First of all, there is the commendable way in which this Convention functioned. This is merit that should be retained and encouraged for future projects, specifically future revisions of the European Union Treaties. Secondly, I wish to focus on the binding nature of this Charter. The European public would not understand if Europe were to move faster in making improvements to the market and the currency but more slowly in effectively establishing its rights of citizenship and its basic rights. Thirdly, I wish to emphasise, as has already been done, that the Nice conclusions and, specifically, the revision of the Treaty, should include this reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Article 6(2). The pomp and circumstance surrounding the signing and the proclamation of the Charter are not enough; these rights must be effectively put into practice. That is why, once again, we urge and insist that the Presidency should be able to exercise the role of teacher towards its peers in the Council. Lastly, I have two proposals: firstly, the signing and ratification of this Charter of Fundamental Rights by their parliaments should be part of existing Community rules for candidate countries. Secondly, the Nice conclusions should establish a precise timetable for future presidencies to be able to move from this Charter to the Treaty, and I would suggest that the deadline should be set to coincide with ratification by all parliaments of the new revision of the Treaties that will result from Nice.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report to the European Parliament on the results of summits is always an experience. It is an experience because if only half of what is regularly announced to us really happened, if Europe had already achieved the results which have now been presented to us as the slogan of the European Council – fighting unemployment and putting the European Union in the leading position on the world markets -, this alone would be a success. Has the Council still not learned how little its political promises are worth when it then fails to implement anything and trivial matters are blocked in the Council for years? Has the Council still not learned that we never solve any problems in Europe because we keep shifting them to European level? Can the Council really back out of its responsibility in the individual Member States so easily? As the European Parliament, we should not accept this. The right model for successfully meeting the challenges of globalisation is competition for the most successful economic, employment, research, education and social policies, not European dumbing down. Who, if not Europe with its different traditions and cultures, can find an answer to this, provided that we leave responsibility for problem solving where it belongs, namely with the Member States? It makes no sense to define European targets for economic growth if we do not remove barriers to growth at Member State level. It makes no sense to unify education policy at European level if we still have countless problems with arrangements for recognising diplomas. Even the desire to connect all schools to the Internet is not a question, which should be dealt with at European level. It needs to be done locally. As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I warn you against doing this with European funds from the European budget. Lisbon missed its big chance to really improve things substantially for the citizens of Europe. Instead, all we heard were pipe dreams which can never be checked and for which the Council is responsible in the Member States, not at European level. In the end, people will take their leave of such a Europe. We must not allow that to happen.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the way in which the global market has been divided up within the WTO is not based on the interests of the people or on the interests of workers. In the forthcoming round of negotiations, the forces of capitalism are aiming to tear down the final barriers to their freedom of action and their world domination. Full liberalisation of the market, the abolition of subsidies and the involvement of the WTO in negotiations for uncontrolled investment will make the smaller countries hostages to the larger countries and their peoples pawns at the mercy of monopolies. The aim of the commercialisation of services, even of education, health and culture, is to deprive the working class and the people in general of many of their achievements gained over the century. We do not believe that the governments of the European Union countries will defend the interests of their peoples. They will, on the contrary, endeavour to make European monopolies compete better with the other imperialist interests in the USA and Japan. The MEPs of the Greek Communist Party will be voting against the Schwaiger report because it sides with monopoly capital in its attack on workers and the people of the world. Rules governing international economic relations and trade should respect fundamental social rights, serve the interests of workers, promote development in the less developed countries, respect the environment and create the conditions for the development of all peoples.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Turco and my colleague Mr Sousa Pinto for their important reports which show the essential work the agencies are doing through their investigations into how drugs actually function, their effect, the impact on society and which describe what help and improvements can be made. This is especially important and significant when we look at the whole question of enlargement. A previous speaker spoke very eloquently about the evil of drugs, and Mr Beysen referred to the tobacco vote a couple of days ago. There is an element of hypocrisy here, because half the House voted against having stronger measures on tobacco advertising and – I choose my words carefully – there are many Members in this House who are regular users, to different degrees, of alcohol, which is a very powerful drug. I am not teetotal, nor do I wish to be sanctimonious about this, but we have to be realistic about the situation that exists in Europe today. That must be our starting-point. We also have to be realistic about what we want from the Centre. I take issue with Mrs Boumediene-Thiery and Mr Cappato on some of their remarks about the Centre as it functions at the moment. For the work of the Monitoring Centre in Lisbon to be effective, Member States have to cooperate fully. As Mrs Banotti has just said, the agencies have to be involved. The Lisbon Centre has to have reliable, accurate information and be able to monitor and involve all the different agencies in as many countries as possible. Mr Blokland said that we should not include Turkey. If you look at the whole question of drugs and the issues of enlargement of the European Union, Turkey is an intrinsic part of the supply routes for drugs coming into Europe. I know the Turkish authorities are looking at ways of improving the situation and so are the applicant countries and those which would like to be applicant countries. They want to address this problem. In many cases they do not have the civic structures and other organisations in place to properly enforce some of the regulations we would like and some of the monitoring that would take place. So we cannot exclude one country because we do not like it very much: we have to open our doors to as many countries as we can and encourage the work that is being done. Of course, there is not enough being done. There needs to be more progress. But if we just sit back and say that everything is fine or just say 'no' to drugs and that people should not use them, we are not accepting the situation as it is; we are not giving the tools to those people who want to improve the position. I look forward to another debate, as Mrs Banotti has said – perhaps in a year's time – when we can actually start to pinpoint some of the progress that is being made. I congratulate Mr Sousa Pinto and Mr Turco.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has asked the Commission to produce a study of the effects of Basle II. Even though this study has not yet seen the light of day, we know that the effects of Basle II touch Europe – I refer in particular to the creditworthiness of small and medium-sized enterprises and the securities they are required to provide. What I want to ask is: what will the Council do in order to get its hands on this study, and how will it deal with the problem of tax reform in such a way that small and medium-sized enterprises can meet the requirements of Basle II?

Political group: PPE-DE