GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Minister, President of the Commission, I would just like to make a few brief comments on the Lisbon European Council and on the resolution we have just signed on behalf of the group, without a great deal of enthusiasm it must be said. Mr Prodi, I should like to address the following comments to you. It is clear that in Lisbon the European Union set itself a very ambitious objective, that of achieving a competitive economy. We support this project but we would like to draw your attention to the needs of our citizens. A genuine project for the 21st century must take on board the real needs of our citizens. I read in a newspaper yesterday that the mobile telephone market has reached saturation point with approximately 50 to 60 million surplus mobile telephones. Yet, in the European Union, not every citizen has the possibility of finding decent housing. Meeting the needs of our citizens is therefore crucial. In this respect, we also support the idea of environmental indicators and we deplore the fact that we will have to wait until the Barcelona European Council in 2002 before we actually have an integrated strategy. We wish your communication on sustainable development every success but we would like matters to proceed more quickly. My second comment is about the instruments. Liberalising sectors is good but it must go hand in hand with obligations to provide services of general interest. From this perspective, and while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, we support the idea of the European Union having a framework directive on its obligations to provide public services of general interest, which is not the case at the moment. I would like to make one final comment on the public finances you mentioned. I would ask you to pay attention, in the development of public spending, to the fact that there are perfectly legitimate areas of public spending, such as investment and education, which are sine qua non conditions if we want to meet the future challenges of society. The role of public authorities and public spending is therefore of paramount importance within the context of the Lisbon strategy.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as everyone knows, the main aim of the European Union’s development cooperation policy is to combat and ultimately eradicate poverty. Consequently, the specific measures intended to promote equality between men and women, women’s independence and their role in the economic, social and environmental spheres make significant contributions as well as being a matter of fairness. This is because it is most frequently women and children who are the victims of poverty. The progress that has already been made as a result of adopting a global strategy to mainstream the gender perspective in development cooperation should be acknowledged and underlined, but much remains to be done. There are aspects that are crucial to gender equality and women’s independence and it is to these that particular attention must be paid, with particular emphasis on areas such as health, education, training, access to economic and social activities, and also access to employment and to infrastructures and participation in decision-making processes. The projects must be in line with reality and to achieve this we must have data and statistics that are broken down by gender, which will enable us to evaluate actions before they are selected and once they have been undertaken. We must highlight the crucial role of organisations working in the field, taking account of their direct and more extensive knowledge of the real needs and of the means needed to undertake actions. Another point that I would underline is the need to create partnerships. The key actors, including regional authorities, should form networks in order to exchange experience, and good practice so as to define actions better and to achieve better participation in their implementation. To conclude, I wish to emphasise that promoting gender equality in development cooperation for the 2004-2006 period must be given a budget that matches the needs. I understand the reasons that the Commission has put forward in this debate and by the rapporteur, whom I congratulate, but, taking account of the measures that still need to be implemented and the efforts that still need to be made, the corresponding budget line must be increased to EUR 11 million.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as we are talking about human rights, I would like to speak on an issue of method, which applies to all the association agreements. Today, a joint debate is going to take place on the association agreements with Egypt, and it will include oral questions and motions for resolutions. For the sake of a democratic debate and a more coherent vote on all the association agreements, it is important for it to be split into separate parts. We suggest that the debate should deal, first of all, with oral questions and resolutions and then, secondly, with the vote on the association agreements. It is neither logical nor coherent to take a position on these issues at the same time. The oral questions and resolutions are intended to question the political powers of these countries and to give them time to debate and respond to those questions. This two-part method allows us to confirm the fundamental importance that we attach to the whole agreement, particularly Article 2 on human rights. The example of Egypt is telling in that it shows that we do not silently accept a decision that constitutes a violation of human rights, the recent condemnation of homosexuals, and flouts the values that we defend in Article 2 of our agreements. Our group would therefore like to keep the debate and vote on oral questions and motions for resolutions in one part-session, and put the association agreements back to another part-session. We have already made a request to that effect by letter to the President.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to explain why the were in favour of these proposed amendments. I refer to points 11 and 13 in the explanatory statement which, in the final analysis, constitutes the basis for another, more important, explanatory statement, and the tricky points in paragraphs 7 and 12, which we have in any case supported. Paragraph 7 expresses the wish to find a legal framework for the problems which are bound to arise on this new market. That was in fact the main reason for this own initiative report. So why question it? Paragraph 12 demands, requests, calls on the Member States to consider how to apply specific VAT arrangements to publications which are downloaded. The problem already exists and this would simply serve to completely confuse current policies. Paragraph 12 does not in fact contradict paragraph 13, because paragraph 13 merely calls on the Member States, if necessary, to reduce or abolish any VAT rates which apply to books – especially for institutions such as libraries etc. –, i.e. not to treat publications on the new e-market any differently. That is no contradiction. On the contrary, it could be an important step for the future, for this new market and for books as a cultural commodity. That is why the voted in favour of it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This report contains renewed endorsements of the work and results of the Convention we have rejected. As we have complained in the past, the undemocratic methods and processes by which the Convention was constituted helped produce a text to which we are flatly opposed, since we disagree with the social project it advocates. Under the terms of this text, an increasingly aggressive form of capitalism will become entrenched, society will be structured along neoliberal lines, everything will be commercialised and people will become increasingly devalued. The social aspects which the text promised to defend will become secondary, and we will slide further down the road mapped out in the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice. This is a real attack on the principles of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. It is a threat to sovereignty, not only in legal and institutional terms, but also in concrete areas of citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms. It is an attempt to consign any chance of alternative routes to European integration to the dustbin of history. Instead of selecting as absolute priorities the quest for peace, development, and economic and social cohesion, based on high levels of social welfare for all, this text defines peace as a mere possibility and not as a fundamental objective. It embraces the profoundly militaristic NATO route, tied to United States imperialism. We believe that the next Intergovernmental Conferences should reject the Convention’s proposal and find alternative ways of giving a positive response to today’s problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the employment guidelines for 1999 emphasise that a concern with equality must permeate all action plans and measures which are proposed under all four pillars of the EU’s employment strategy. So far, the results have been meagre. A very limited number of measures concerning equality have been introduced. Few (albeit some) budget resources have been made use of, and few quantitative objectives have been established. European women earn, on average, 76 per cent of men’s hourly wages, and their employment rate is approximately 20 per cent lower than men’s. It is not enough to make sweeping commitments concerning equality under the fourth pillar in the employment guidelines. What, instead, is required are clear references under all four pillars. The opinion I have formulated on the report will ensure that a concern with equality permeates the employment guidelines for the year 2000. Most of the proposals which I and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities have submitted have already been adopted by the Committee, but a small number of central proposals were not adopted, namely Amendment Nos 37, 38 and 39. These are now being submitted by a number of groups. These proposals require the Member States to undertake to achieve a balance between women and men in any decision making, to ensure that there are as many female as male candidates for committees and working parties within the EU, to improve labour market legislation so that it reflects women’s needs and problems, and to ensure – not least – that those who draw up the guidelines for national employment policies are trained in such a way that they might more effectively integrate a concern with equality into their work. Finally, annual quantifiable objectives are to be introduced in the Member States. My opinion is entirely in line with the Amsterdam Treaty which attaches much more importance to equality than did the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Rome. Above all, the Amsterdam Treaty describes the achievement of equality between women and men as one of the EU’s central tasks. Discrimination against women in the labour market is not only non-productive but prevents the development of women as individuals, of women as a group and of society as a whole.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there have been times in recent months when I have felt that we are conducting politics through the looking-glass, where all the norms are reversed and black has become white, so I think it is quite useful for us to get back to basics. First of all, the United States of America is a democratic country which twice in the last century was prepared to lay down the lives of its citizens to defend peace, freedom and democracy in Europe. Iraq is a country ruled by a dictatorship, where there is neither freedom nor democracy, and whose leaders murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and is known to be a threat to peace and stability in the region. It is not the other way round. It is also worth remembering exactly what resolution 1441 actually says. Paragraph 1 states that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations under UN resolutions. Paragraph 4 states that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Finally, Paragraph 13 recalls that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. Given Hans Blix's report, it could be argued that Paragraph 4 has already been breached. Whatever is the case, the UN has to decide what it means by Paragraph 13 and by serious consequences. Colleagues who have spoken are right that the future of the UN is at stake. The UN cannot make threats without being prepared to carry them out. The inspectors need more time and we need more information from the Americans. But if further serious breaches are reported, resolution 1441 has to be followed through. Failure to do so will only sanction the very illegal activity we have condemned, and it seems to me that some of the contributions today are attacks on UN resolution 1441 which we are all supporting. No member of the Security Council should prejudge that debate; nor should they say now how they are going to vote before they see the evidence. But we must be clear that, if a second resolution is forthcoming from the UN, we must all support it because that is what we have stated very clearly in our resolutions in this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order, it was a big disappointment that President Prodi did not present his reform package on regulation to a Conference of Presidents open to all Members. Could you transmit this back to President Cox to say that many of us felt that as it was such an important announcement we should all have been involved in that announcement. I am sure the Commission would have benefited from that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all in favour of securing future financing for pensions, having an equitable and stable inter-generation compact, and creating a workable, clearly defined three-pillar model that increases the individual’s range of options and supports the mobility of employees. All of us here say “yes” to minimum rules because they increase mobility. We are all in favour of having clear minimum rules alongside supervisory rules. However we do not agree – and this is a matter of regret to me – on what we mean by supplementary company pensions. We are not in agreement on whether supplementary company pensions supplement the first or the third pillar. We do not agree on the opportunities employees should have to participate. There is a reason for this. The reason is that each of our countries has a different system, although we have the same headings: we have different tax provisions, different levels of performance, different cultures and a lack of mobility. I will therefore tell you what I think: I am in favour of having a single market for financial services and liberalising the market, but, when it comes to supplementary company pensions, protective mechanisms must be put in place for employees, and the social market economy must be stimulated. Therefore I also advocate that the supplementary pension packages, which include biometric risks, should offer special advantages to those entitled to benefits and to society as a whole, and that they should therefore receive preferential treatment, whilst allowing people to retain the option of choosing one of the others, because what I do not want is for those who are mobile to be socially worse off than those who stay at home.

Political group: PPE-DE
The fight against discrimination is an issue which has been on the agenda of the French Assembly since 1979. Two inquiries on racism have already been established and the French Parliament was the instigator in 1986 of a joint interinstitutional declaration. However, such initiatives are no longer enough. We must go further and legislate. The Buitenweg report is timely as racism and anti-Semitism are still of concern in Europe. Is this the right moment to reiterate our vigilance with regard to certain parties now in power? With Mr Deprez and Mr De Clercq I tabled an amendment to the title of the directive. In the French version the Commission’s initial text uses the phrase ‘sans distinction de race ou d’origine ethnique’. The concept of origin is fundamental as discrimination may relate not only to the current status of an individual but also to his origin and descent. We wanted to introduce the same nuance and precision with regard to the issue of race and therefore proposed ‘d’origine raciale’. This amendment was adopted in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights but I note now that it has simply disappeared from the text submitted to you. We should like an assurance that this will be duly corrected. Also, although the issue of religion has been excluded from this directive for legal reasons, it is vital to reiterate that we are definitely not ignoring the forms of discrimination based on religious beliefs. Parliament has still to examine another Commission text in this respect. To conclude, the Buitenweg report is inspired by a proactive and progressive approach which I have supported. The risk of a resurgence of the neo-fascist and racist hydra requires close vigilance from us, more so now than ever before. We must lead the way in this fight.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we were somewhat confounded yesterday by an action of a Member of the Confederal Group of the , but I think that what I am about to announce will not come as a surprise to anyone here, as I explained at length on Monday what I am about to request. In fact, you have also received several e-mails and I have also written to the Conference of Presidents on the matter. The fact is that according to Members of various groups, the agenda on Fridays is too light, as a result of which many Members genuinely believe that their time can be spent more productively elsewhere. Consequently, there are few of us here today and we cannot guarantee that our electorate is adequately represented here. We therefore believe that a choice needs to be made: either we need to give more substance to Friday’s agenda or to abolish the Friday sitting. In this context, I wish to ask for the quorum to be checked.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to ask three sets of questions in the very generous allocation of 120 seconds given to me this afternoon. Firstly, on agriculture. Obviously, like everybody, we in the Group share the enthusiasm for the outlines of the deal on the reform of the common agricultural policy. We accept entirely that the tactical priority must now be to turn the tables on the Americans in particular, and to see if they will put their money where their mouth is as far as agricultural reform is concerned. My group has a number of outstanding questions. Firstly, whilst there is visible progress in this reform on the elimination or the reduction of trade-distorting internal support, what about market access? There is nothing in that package that a priori includes improved market access: beyond a reiteration that the European Union takes in more products than anybody else, I want to know at what point are we going to offer greater market access? Also at what point are we going to really tackle some of the unforgivable aspects of certain sector-specific regimes still in place, notably in sugar? The second set of questions concerns the Singapore issues. My group accepts the basic view that the Singapore agenda is one that is worthwhile pursuing, but we are still not quite convinced that the legitimate concerns of developing countries about the scope and complexity of those talks have been addressed. What assurances can the Commissioner give us that those concerns will be addressed by or at the Cancun summit? Final set of questions. The Commissioner suggested in his opening remarks that he would act as if he were anticipating the outcome of the next Intergovernmental Conference as far as increased powers for the Europe Parliament are concerned. Could he give me an assurance today that, even if the treaty flowing from the Intergovernmental Conference, which includes the power of assent of the European Parliament, is not yet ratified, in those circumstances he would still submit the outcome of next year's conclusion of this round to us for a vote of assent?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission is required to submit a directive proposal on measures for workers during pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding by the end of 2000. The assessment of the existing measures, which was intended to lead to change, is four years behind schedule and fails to meet the requirements which the European Parliament prescribed at the time. The Group of the calls for an increase in the level of protection. The report mainly focuses on institutional aspects. In our opinion, this report should also embrace the right to return back to work to the same or an equivalent job after maternity leave. We are asking for the rights of pregnant and breastfeeding women to be extended. In practice, women are often discriminated against during this period, despite rights on paper. This is why we call for a reversal of the burden of proof. Employers will need to demonstrate that any dismissal or change of job is not linked to pregnancy. Finally, we would like the Commission to explain why at the recent ILO conference, the Member States failed to adopt the common positions. How is it possible that the United Kingdom abstained from the final vote, which, in view of the procedure, is tantamount to voting against? We would like to close by thanking Mrs Damião for the work she has carried out.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for joining us for this debate on the problems in the textile and clothing industry. There is no doubt that this debate is taking place, among other reasons, because of the Commission’s communication on the textile industry in the context of an enlarged Europe, for which I want to thank the Commission. The communication proposes a whole range of measures to assist the sector in its efforts to define a strategy in view of the new market challenges and, in particular, in view of the end of import quotas from 1 January 2005. Some recent and imminent events, such as China joining the WTO and the elimination of quotas and duties for certain products, are forcing the industry to take steps to resolve problems rapidly. In my opinion, some of the measures proposed in the communication are urgently needed. Firstly, it is important to have both Community and national policies that encourage SMEs to invest directly in research and development activities, and in innovation, as an essential means of incorporating new production processes, of encouraging creativity and fashion, and as a result, increasing the sector’s ability to compete on the global market. I have to say that such matters merit consideration. A short while ago, Commissioner Busquin talked to me about these initiatives – initiatives such as creating support offices for SMEs to help them obtain intellectual property rights protection for brand names, designs and patents. Secondly, I would say that we need to obtain agreements within the WTO whereby certain countries which are our rivals or which have zero duty access to our markets, or at least very low levels of duty, are required to reduce their current high duty levels as an essential part of trade liberalisation. Finally, it is very important that the Commission implement the proposed measures on protecting intellectual property rights. Third countries must respect these rights, and it is also essential that we monitor compliance with the APIC agreements, if we are to combat piracy and counterfeiting. I do hope that the rapid approval of the Directive on enforcing intellectual property rights, and the revision of the customs regulation, will become key instruments in protecting this industrial property which is so important for so many sectors, including textiles.

Political group: PSE