GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Avilés Perea, I would also like to pay tribute to Francisca Bennasar Tous, who worked very hard in the last legislature to ensure the success of this programme. The European Parliament, and, particularly, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, have played a vitally important role in placing the issue of violence against women and children firmly on the European agenda. As the legal basis has now changed, we now face a codecision procedure on public health, because violence is really a physical and mental act that affects all social classes. Parliament firmly supports the definition of “health” made by the World Health Organisation and so, for us, health can be defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not just the absence of disease. The actions of the Daphne programme must still be supported by NGOs, and, as we ourselves have proposed in our amendments, by social communication, as women, who are some of Europe’s most sceptical citizens where the European Union is concerned, must be made aware and understand that programmes such as Daphne exist and that they are of direct concern to women. In Portugal, for example, violence against women is statistically higher in areas which have a higher standard of living or higher levels of education, which does not necessarily mean that that is where more violence against women and children occurs. What it means – to my mind – is that there are more women in those areas who are financially independent, better educated and braver about making a complaint to the police. One of the practical measures taken in Portugal, at least in urban areas, was to have women police officers deal with women making complaints, and that immediately made a huge difference. Finally, I would like to take advantage of the fact that Commissioner António Vitorino, who attended the Tampere Summit, is here, to ask him to tell us how the Council’s final decision, which we applaud, to criminalise violence against human beings, particularly against women and children, will be put into practice. What it is going to change, Commissioner, and how?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I really must say that I am quite amazed at how one can manage, in a debate about an earthquake in El Salvador, to say that one was a reserve officer in the German army and a 'positive' member of the generation of 68 and to talk about stone-throwing members of the 68 Movement. I do not know what one has got to do with the other, apart perhaps from the fact that Mr Knolle felt compelled to tell us a little of his own biography, but this is perhaps not without interest either. According to the descriptions of my colleagues, the events in El Salvador are dramatic and we have heard many speakers state quite correctly that if the question being asked here is how quick and efficient our aid is, then in the case of this natural catastrophe it does actually seem to be arriving quickly, our initial assistance I mean. What concerns us, however – and what also characterised the discussion about the motion and how it should be worded in our group – is the fact that we know from experience that this has not always been the case. We call on the Commission to ensure that the aid – when the European Union helps by providing a go-get-it approach, know-how, equipment and people on the ground – does not only arrive when the people have, for the most part, already helped themselves or when the next natural catastrophe is due to be dealt with. The European Union's credibility, both internally and in its relations with its partners, is threatened when money is admittedly made available and aid is promised, but because of bureaucratic obstacles the aid either arrives far too late or not at all. On the one hand, therefore, this is about immediate help for the poorest of the poor, who need our solidarity, but on the other hand it is also about the fact that we need to bear in mind that our aid is futile if it becomes entangled in a jungle of red tape. That is why we are glad that this motion has been drafted jointly by several groups. We hope, Commissioner Nielson, that the Commission will work just as quickly on this motion as Parliament has. As for Mr Knolle, I hope that he does not encounter any stone-throwing foreign ministers.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I listened with interest to what Mr Roche told us earlier, namely that the Irish Presidency of the Council is drawing, in its proposals, on those made by its Italian predecessor. Basically, Mr Roche, the only thing is that the public has no idea whatever about what negotiations are currently going on and what the present position is with regard to the draft Constitution. At the same time, the text produced by the Convention is still under massive attack, even though it is due to be adopted at the end of the Irish Presidency, which is only a matter of a few weeks away. I therefore, as a former member of the Convention, have this appeal to make to the Council and to the Irish who preside over it. For a start, no concession must be made, under any circumstances whatever, to the renewed pressure from the European Central Bank for the objective in Part I to be revised. The Convention has stated that the ECB should, in future, promote a balance between sustainable growth, employment and price stability, and that should be the end of the matter. Secondly, Part III of the draft Constitution must – as this House has emphatically demanded – be adapted, in a politically and legally binding way, to the fundamental provisions of Part I, in order to secure the social dimension of the European Union. To put it another way, the expression ‘open market economy’ must be replaced by ‘social market economy’ if we are to avoid opening the door wide to unbridled capitalism. Thirdly, let me contradict Mr Poettering by saying that the preamble to the Constitution is no place for mention of God. The people who live in the EU must not be divided into believers and unbelievers. Reference to God is not, moreover, a suitable bargaining counter for getting the Poles, for example, to agree to dual majority in the Council of Ministers, nor must it be used in an attempt to nullify the idea of Turkey’s accession to the EU. We do indeed need a referendum on the Constitution, and, in the Convention, I have already argued the case for one. It is the EU’s citizens who must have the last word, for it is their future that is at stake. I urge that there should be an EU-wide referendum on the Constitution on the same day in all the Member States; the date I would suggest is 8 May 2005. Being the 60th anniversary of liberation from Fascism and the eve of the Day of Europe, it would be a suitable day on which to vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Frahm and perhaps by offering a few congratulations to those of ourselves who participated in these negotiations with the Council. We have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Irish Presidency on this regulation and on the implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. There were perhaps not so many people who believed we would reach an agreement, but Mrs Frahm handled the matter extraordinarily well. Even if everything that has been achieved is not ideal and exactly what we should have wanted, it is still perhaps the best that could have been accomplished, given what is possible politically. I am very pleased. As others have also said, it is important for the regulation now to be implemented as soon as possible, because persistent organic pollutants are in the rogues’ gallery of dangerous chemical substances. They do not break down, but accumulate in our bodies and in the whole food chain. The levels are now so high that they are a danger both to public health and to the eco-systems and their functioning. The objective must be to put a complete stop to the discharges of persistent organic pollutants by banning their production, use and import. We must therefore go further and, in a number of cases, much further than is indicated both by the Stockholm Convention and by the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This must also apply to the new Member States that are to join the EU in May of this year. In some cases, requests have been made for exemptions for HCH and lindane, for example, but these cannot under any circumstances be accepted. I am often very surprised at how difficult it is for the Commission, the Council and perhaps sometimes also Parliament’s more conservative sector to get things through in relation to protecting people’s health and the environment and at the fact that there are repeated delays, postponements and hold-ups. In this area, the precautionary principle must apply fully, meaning too that new substances must be included on the list for banning or controlling these substances. When it comes to the legal basis, I do not understand the Commission. Nor do I understand why there has to be this kind of debate. The legal basis must be Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community because these decisions are being taken in order to protect people’s health and the environment. The whole of chemicals legislation is, of course, designed to do just that. The fact has also been discussed from Chester onwards that it is because we cannot otherwise protect public health and the environment that we must take sound decisions in terms of a comprehensive and overall view of chemicals legislation. In conclusion, I think that this agreement with the Council is extremely commendable, as is the fact that we have reached it at first reading, because it is so important that we implement the agreement as soon as possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We have chosen to abstain in the vote on the Prets/Pack/Iivari reports. The reason for this is that we consider that issues of culture and education should be dealt with at national level where the decisions are taken as close to the citizens as possible. We object on principle to the Pack report’s choosing a small number of schools to receive a large proportion of the total education grant from the EU. We think there are many other good schools that should be taken into consideration. For the EU to become more effective and efficient in relation to the big cross-border issues, the politics of everyday issues such as schools, the arts and youth issues must be left to the Member States. These issues must be considered at a level that is closer to the citizens. - Report: Daul (A5-0123/2004)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for his efforts and praise the important work of the institutions in their approach to animal health which also, of course, facilitates the protection of human health. This proposal falls within the framework of the legislation intended to strengthen the rules on feedingstuffs, included in the White Paper on food safety. Therefore, Parliament, as well as the Commission, demands mandatory labelling which specifies the composition – as a percentage by weight, as Mr Cunha said –, the quantities and the origin of the ingredients of the feedingstuffs, rather than indicating the categories of the ingredients with no further detail, such as, for example, by proteins or by oils and fats, which has had so much to do with previous scandals such as the cases of BSE and dioxins. The demand that manufacturers provide proof of the composition of foods, and that there be an exhaustive and up-to-date list of authorised raw materials and rigorous controls of suspicious materials – and their immediate withdrawal from the market – must from now on be essential issues for us. I am grateful that this matter is finally coming to its conclusion and that we are going to have a solution as swiftly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the recitals of this report highlight aspects of gender inequality. Women are forced into temporary work, they are far more exposed to insecure jobs and unemployment, and on average they are paid 30% less than men. Unfortunately, the proposals that follow do not measure up to the challenge of those recitals. Firstly, because the majority of them are about creating monitoring centres, collecting statistics and carrying out studies. Gender inequality is not exactly a new phenomenon we are just discovering, needing to be studied. As regards work, we cannot seek equality and continue to develop insecurity, flexibility and part-time work. That is part-time work that women are forced into, because 70% of them would like to work full-time. Today we are witnessing the pauperisation of wage-earning women all over Europe, including France, where 15% of them live on less than F 3 650 a month. Worse, so-called equality is sometimes turned against women: for instance, in France today the incorporation of a directive is going to make night work legal for women. A strange notion of equality. Other choices could have been made; night work for men could have been banned instead, when it is not required to meet society’s needs. In conclusion, fine words and nothing concrete. That will not be enough. That is what we will be saying in Brussels on 14 October with the World March of Women fighting against violence and for real work for all. Those are the essential conditions for real equality.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I am very pleased to see URBAN orientated towards a more integrated approach which attempts to solve interrelated problems. Yet, there is some risk of dilution of effort. If we pursue too many objectives, our overall effectiveness suffers. Of course, every instance of a deprived urban area is a separate case. But there is a common factor, a hard core, comprising unemployment, the resignation or withdrawal of public services and the disappearance of small and medium-sized enterprises, both commercial and other kinds. I would wish URBAN to be orientated mainly towards providing answers to those causes of urban deprivation. For this, of course, central policy must interact and be coordinated with development policy, so that the latter too can be reorientated and can work synergistically with the objectives of any URBAN programmes implemented in our countries, and so that it is not just using them as an alibi for its own shortcomings.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Members of the have also approved the text concerning the Helsinki Summit. Nevertheless, by way of an explanation of vote, I would like to make a few observations. Parliament has taken note of the fact that Turkey has been included as a candidate country. This turn of phrase clearly hints at the wave of criticism this has met within this Parliament. On behalf of the , I would like to explicitly subscribe to this criticism. We thought it was far too soon, given that the Kurdish issue is nowhere near a stage where it could be resolved in the light of the right to self-determination of the Kurds and human rights are still being violated with no end in sight. The fact that the winner of the Sakharov prize, Leyla Zana, is still in prison herself, clearly indicates that the right to freedom of speech in Turkey and human rights are still being neglected. This is why it was not the right time. We do wonder if there is ever going to be a right time. My second observation concerns our disappointment regarding institutional reform. As far as we are concerned, regions which have sovereign power, based on their own constitution, should also be able to execute it within Europe. Europe is not just a sum of Member States. Democracy within Europe must gain more depth.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have been here since 9 a.m. to speak about the outcome of the Johannesburg Summit. Some Members have taken pleasure in attacking the Commission on the pretext that it has, apparently, failed to communicate sufficient information. In my view, the Commission did a good job in Johannesburg. It defended European positions, even though it was unable to impose Europe’s views on the rest of the world. And although the Commission did not have enough time to boost the egos of certain Members who were twiddling their thumbs in their hotel, it is certainly not a tragedy. I also think that the same Members who criticised the Commission should have at least stayed in the Chamber to listen to the answers provided by the Commissioners and the Council. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Prestige has sunk and, once again, half-baked measures designed to prevent further oil slicks are urgently adopted. They will not be enough for the traumatised and angry communities who must deal with several hundred kilometres of polluted beaches, with the destruction of ecosystems, job losses and the threats looming over the entire local economy. The main cause of these repeated disasters is the drastic reduction in sea transport costs, which have dropped by 30% in 10 years. This results in crew members being exploited outrageously, suffering conditions verging on slavery, fleets that are badly maintained and often obsolete still sailing our waters, and all this goes on whilst those responsible are being protected by a web of impenetrable procedures. In short, bold political decisions are needed. The IMO, which authorised the creation and the development of flags of convenience, must now place a ban on them, which will clarify the chain of responsibilities between boat owners, charterers and States, and will make it possible to hold polluters both financially and criminally responsible. Next, a plan must be drawn up to scrap 4 000 boats that you yourself deem to be at risk, Commissioner, which means ship yards must now focus on constructing and developing modern and safe ships. Lastly, under the responsibility of the ILO, binding legislation must be drawn up that is applicable to all crews the world over. A genuine European maritime safety agency, in which the trade unions would be represented, could and should use an adequate number of inspectors in order to monitor ships and crew working conditions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are still living in terrible conditions, battered by their own government’s policy of homicide and suicide, NATO shelling and the embargoes of the international community. Any democratic opposition is difficult, not only because of suppression by the Serbian authorities but also because of the deprivation suffered by the whole of the population, for which the international community is partly responsible. The result is yet more conflict and violence. Today, we want to express our solidarity with the journalists and democrats whose rights have been violated and declare our commitment to fighting the Milosevic Government’s suppression of the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. The Serbian authorities are suppressing newspapers, independent radio stations and any radio stations which acknowledge opposition groups or parties. I would just like to mention the example of the Studio B operators who, in addition to being pressurised by heavy fines from the authorities, saw their equipment destroyed by hired masked vandals. In this regard, an appeal has been made to the Serbian authorities, calling upon them to bring their criminal inquiries to a close in order to punish those guilty of crimes, to put an end to the increasing suppression and to amend the recent law limiting the freedom of the media. We call for economic support from the European Union for the independent press, but also an economic aid programme for Serbia, to assist the entire afflicted population and to help make it possible for the people of Serbia to at last live in peace and to elect a democratic government.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although many of my proposed amendments were rejected in committee, I welcome the compromise and the draft. It is my belief that, at the end of the day, we should once again point out that as far as this directive is concerned, following the introduction of the euro in 1999, it is the creation of a single European market that takes precedence. We should also cast our minds back to the disadvantages of the old regulation. Funds at national level were unable to reap the benefits of single European passport, which was provided for in the 1985 directive. The range of options for investors was limited. Innovation was not encouraged and various regulations and protective measures for investors in each country created obstacles to competition. It was therefore necessary to update the existing regulation. The new regulation will afford the following benefits: harmonisation of competition conditions and uniform and effective protection for investors – I particularly welcome the introduction of simplified prospectuses in this respect, for they will make it easier for people to compare and assess funds; alternative methods of saving are being created for the general public – this is particularly important in terms of making additional provision for old age – and there are new opportunities for enterprises to acquire capital. However, I would also like to point out that some people are a little concerned that the proposal has shown an inclination towards restricting transactions between UCITS and depositories. Inappropriate restrictions on such relationships should be avoided at all costs, for they fail to take account of the European-style universal banking culture.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as the applause for the rapporteur, Mrs Redondo Jiménez, confirmed, this is one of the most important measures we have voted on. Indeed, in my opinion, statistics are fundamental and in Italy we are in the most terrible chaos as regards the statistics on milk from our cows. Therefore, I voted for the report and I would like to express the hope that statistics will also be gathered on the number of pensioners in the fifteen Member States. Many people say there are too many of them, but I say there are too few: statistics will allow us to ascertain their number. For my part, I would like there to be more and more of them, because ‘it is great being a pensioner’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not want to repeat what other Members have said, especially my colleague, Mrs Dührkop, but I should just like to give a warning in relation to two of the reports you have in front of you. Later this month the Committee on Budgets will have a conciliation meeting with the Council on a variety of issues and one of those issues will be to get an across-the-board agreement on those areas where we have codecision. There are seven areas in total, three of which are on the plenary agenda for this week. We in the Budgets Committee – especially through the work of Mrs Dührkop, who has worked in a very assiduous way – have tried to seek an agreement on these reports. We now find, however, that two of the reports are giving us serious problems. If Amendments 19 to the Prets report and 14 to the Ilvari report are carried, we will have real problems when it comes to the conciliation. In fact I am sure the Council and the Commission will say that the reports actually violate the Financial Regulation. If Parliament were to reject those two amendments it would make life a lot easier. I need to give warning now that, if those two amendments are carried, I, as Chairman of the Budgets Committee, would consider that to be a breach of Rule 63a. In other words, we will taking into account the Financial Regulation and the budgetary consequences. I will stand up during the vote to ask Parliament to support an oral amendment to ensure that both these reports fall into in line with the Financial Regulation. Hopefully, when we come to conciliation, we can get a consensus on all the reports and not just five out of seven.

Political group: PSE