GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I address my remarks this morning in the main to Mrs De Palacio. Mr Prodi in his address to this Parliament some time ago gave a strong commitment to combating fraud and the misuse of public money. That is why during Mrs De Palacio’s hearing I and my colleagues insisted on questioning her very closely on the flax subsidy scandal in which her department was involved in Spain. The response of Mrs De Palacio was not to our satisfaction and indeed her contention that the Spanish Parliament had cleared her of any responsibility and that the issue is now closed is clearly not true. Whilst I appreciate that the OLAF and Spanish investigation is ongoing and that Mrs De Palacio may be totally exonerated of any involvement, the fact remains that she was a little economical with the truth when answering my questions on 30 August. Finally, Mrs De Palacio’s outburst at the press conference following the hearing does not bode well for someone whose remit includes relationships with the European Parliament and, whilst I accept that Mrs De Palacio did apologise later for her remarks, it nevertheless raises another doubt about her ability to carry out this specific role in the new Commission. Sadly, Mr President, even though Mrs De Palacio answered our questions on transport to our satisfaction, and as a group we will no doubt endorse the Commission tomorrow, we must enter a reservation on the candidature of Mrs De Palacio pending the findings of the OLAF and the Spanish authorities’ investigations and because of the way she responded to questioning on this issue at her hearing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the EU/Africa summit was reported in the press under the headline: Kiss and make up! Unfortunately a unique opportunity to reconcile different ways of looking at current problems and find a solution was wasted. First, it is astonishing and highly unsatisfactory that the European Parliament was not included in this allegedly forward-looking conference. The members of the European Council appear to have overlooked the fact here that the people of Europe are represented first and foremost by this Parliament. Obviously no one was particularly interested in apprising the African states of this fact. So it was certainly not a mobilisation summit, as the press described it. As far as the content was concerned, it is perfectly understandable that the developing countries are interested in seeing their debt burden wiped out, but there can be no question of complete remission with no conditions attached. We found out at the last meeting of our ACP/EU assembly in Abuja that in Nigeria, for example, which has restored democracy, one of the last dictators diverted several billion euros to private accounts. One can only emphatically advise the developing countries to prosecute these offences, which are also punishable in Africa, and confiscate the money. Then some, and it is a great deal, of the money would again be available to repay debts. We would be able to recognise the good intentions of the developing countries and could then negotiate writing off and ignoring the rest of their debts. In my view, this is all part and parcel of the good governance to which the countries of Africa have committed themselves if they are to receive more development aid. On the other hand, I totally fail to understand why the German chancellor, for example, is treading a path which goes in the opposite direction of the other EU countries, by saying that the poorest of the poor countries should have all their debts written off first. This rather flashy and, in fact insubstantial gesture contradicts the resolutions of the G8 summit last year and is in keeping with his departure from the conference. It does not help matters if, instead of attending working meetings, one prefers to talk to Gadaffi for 10 minutes. What the topic of conversation was, one may only speculate. The chancellor of the media, as he is called at home, made his entrance and what came out of the final declaration adopted hours later was obviously a matter of indifference to him. This is not the way, in my view, to formulate development policy nor is it the way to bring about the urgently needed reconciliation of national development policies. I think that we, the European Parliament, must continue to denounce these national solo efforts and increase the responsibility of Member States’ governments. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
The Paciotti report on the ‘safe harbour’ agreement has my approval, although it will not solve the problems attending transatlantic data protection for the following reasons: - It will still be possible, even with the ‘safe harbour’ agreement in place, to find ways of getting round it and selling clients’ data to third parties without having to obtain the client’s consent. - Even if the agreement succeeds in defining vague data protection standards, it is not clear precisely what action will be taken when companies violate these standards. Will it be possible to take them to court? Will they have to pay compensation? - The question as to how far EU citizens will actually be able to assert the rights laid down for their benefit in the ‘safe harbour’ agreement remains unanswered, particularly as the court of jurisdiction for the US companies is in the USA and so they have a natural advantage over individual EU citizens. That said, I still subscribe to the report because, as matters stand, there are no provisions whatsoever for guaranteeing EU data protection standards in the exchange of data with other continents. The ‘safe harbour’ scheme does at least represent an attempt to guarantee data protection beyond EU borders.

Political group: Verts-ALE
My group is also of the opinion that the mandate that the Commission has been given is a good one, and that it is quite happy to be publicly associated with it. Negotiations have only just begun, and we are sure that if the Commission – Europe – takes a certain step, other trade blocs will have to follow. For us the most important thing is that we have found that the European people do not fully support European agricultural policy at this moment. Clearly this must change, so we must change European agricultural policy. We are in favour of the maximum possible reduction trade subsidies that distort trade, and this applies in particular to export subsidies and other similar subsidies imposed by other trade blocs. We are therefore generally in favour of greater liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. Something else enters into this, however. In Europe we have all sorts of rules which have little to do with the health of the product but much more to do with ethical principles, such as animal welfare, the bird and habitat directive, and so on. Elsewhere in the world, farmers have far fewer of these kinds of rules to contend with. I always find it very difficult to explain to European farmers why they have to adhere to these rules and at the same time compete with farmers elsewhere in the world who do not have to. This seems to me to be a recipe for unfair competition, and I think that the Commission should emphasise this, particularly in its negotiations with the World Trade Organisation. What is more, farmers in various parts of Europe do not always enjoy a very good income. We cannot change everything from one day to the next, and I therefore think that we need to pay great attention to the European agricultural model; this is something that we can certainly defend in an international context. We must be able to reward farmers for their performance on a basis other than their production of agricultural products. I can therefore only emphasise the need for the Commission to defend the worldwide recognition of regional products grown in Europe and the ban on their being grown elsewhere under the same name. The Commission must also emphatically underline our endorsement of a system of integrated agricultural production, with control from stable to table, so to speak. I would also like to emphasise that in addition to the policy of improving product prices, we need another policy to cover the use of agricultural products for industrial purposes. Finally, everything but arms: the overwhelming majority of my group supports this, and we must do something for the poorest developing countries. The great question for our group is that of how the Commission is dealing with the principle of origin, and how, as we intend, we can be sure that products imported by us really do come from the poorest countries. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to concentrate on Mr Blak’s excellent report. The Committee on Budgetary Control has worked very hard for the past four months, and held meetings in quick succession. We are inclined to grant the Commission discharge for the 1999 budget. Does this mean that everything is smelling of roses, or that nothing is going wrong? No. After all, the Court of Auditors is refusing to guarantee that the payments were, generally speaking, legitimate and regular. Commissioner, we are extremely dissatisfied with this state of affairs. We would therefore ask you to ensure that you will receive from the Court of Auditors a positive Statement of Assurance by no later than 2003. Ladies and gentlemen, we should still be mindful of the fact that the Member States are responsible for more than 80% of all expenditure. I would once again like to lodge a complaint against the Council for its absence, and against the Economic and Financial Affairs Council for the nonchalance which it is displaying in dealing with the discharge. This is shoddy work and cannot be taken seriously. The Member States are still insufficiently aware of the fraud issue. I therefore urge the Irish, Luxembourg and Belgian parliaments to ratify the anti-fraud agreement, which was concluded in 1995, without delay. I myself am starting a campaign today to convince my national counterparts to ratify this agreement in Belgium before July of this year. As far as I am concerned, this is absolutely crucial if the Belgian Presidency is to build up any credibility with regard to anti-fraud policy. The Blak report contains many positive statements with regard to the Commission. As permanent rapporteur for the former Yugoslavia, I can bear witness to the excellent work of our delegation in Sarajevo. But we should also turn our attention to a few of the less attractive issues: the flax case, the latest developments of which, it is true, we are not yet fully conversant with, the mafia case involving adulterated butter, and, indeed, the Fléchard case. Commissioner, you were right in saying that we have spent a generous amount of time on this issue. There is indeed something peculiar about it, and I have listened very carefully to your statement and pledges in this connection. With an unqualified ‘no’, you have told us that this will not happen in future. You promised a solid basis for the application of the principle of proportionality. You also promised to change tack as regards debt collection. As far as my group is concerned, you herewith comply with the conditions contained in Paragraph 8, I d) of the Blak resolution, and I can inform you, on behalf of my group, that we will be granting you discharge.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Mrs Hermange is absolutely right. She was right to emphasise in the context of her excellent report that at the heart of all of this must be the best interests of children. As Parliament's mediator in these areas I receive many phone calls. I have spoken to some very distressed people representing parents whose children have been taken away. They tell me of a lack of access to these children and difficulties in getting the children back once they have been on access visits in another country. The great value of this particular piece of legislation is that we hope that many countries that, due to their own judicial systems, were unwilling to sign the Hague Convention of 1980 on the transnational abduction of children, will see their way to signing this piece of legislation, thus ensuring the safe and quick return of children who have been abducted. The good news is that Morocco has recently become the first Islamic country to sign this particular piece of international legislation, for which I would like to congratulate that country. We hope this will set a precedent for many of the other Islamic countries who do not feel, due to the type of legislation they have – Sharia law – that they can sign the 1980 Convention. The good news also is that very recently the Council passed the Brussels II Convention. Even though the rights of children are not enshrined in the Treaty yet – and we hope this will come eventually – we now have several pieces of excellent legislation that should ensure the safety and rights of these children to know both their parents in the event of a marital breakdown. The fact is that under the Brussels II Convention the decisions made in the court in the country where the child normally lives can be implemented in the country where the abducted child is being held. The 1996 Hague Convention is an excellent piece of legislation. I can assure you, Mr President, Mrs Reding and Mrs Hermange, that they will be raising glasses of champagne to us tonight in The Hague. They have been most anxious to see this matter progress. The Secretary-General of the Hague Convention, Mr Duncan, will be absolutely delighted at the speed, efficiency and care with which Mrs Hermange has brought her report to us.

Political group: PPE-DE
We Moderate Members of the European Parliament have voted against the above report. It is regrettable that the South Korean shipbuilding industry receives significant state aid, but that is no reason for also subsidising the European shipbuilding industry. The matter should be vigorously pursued by the EU within the WTO. Setting up a European consortium to go some way towards controlling and influencing the market situation would not solve the problems of the European shipbuilding industry but be in danger of exacerbating the situation in the longer term.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, the reason why the lifts did not appear to be working was that the security guards were standing at the bottom with about three of them blocked off, apparently for some delegation that is visiting Parliament! Because this building is so badly designed, the lifts barely have enough capacity for Members as it is, without the security guards taking over two or three of them at precisely the time when everybody is coming down to vote. The sessional services should get themselves better organised. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish, first of all, to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, on the timeliness and the quality of her rapport. One of the Union’s objectives is to promote a high level of employment. Therefore, within the framework of the Luxembourg process, the Member States have been cooperating in the field of employment policy, and are responsible for selecting specific measures for its implementation. In fact, it could not be otherwise. More recently, the Lisbon European Council set the Union the strategic objective of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth generating more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. This report seeks to make a contribution towards meeting this new challenge set in Lisbon, covering equal opportunities for men and women in the field of employment, an important pillar in the European Employment Strategy. The report aims to foster cooperation between Member States in analysis, research and monitoring of labour market policy, identifying best practices and promoting exchanges and transfers of information and experience. All of this will be flanked by an active information policy, so that Europe’s citizens can easily see what the strategic objectives in the field of employment are. We must ensure that the social partners and relevant local and regional authorities are involved in this effort, which must be a communal effort. Furthermore, it is equally crucial that a study should be made of infrastructures that help men and women to gain employment and to remain employed, such as crèche places and home help, a point that is made clear in the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. The European Parliament is already a key player within the consultation process in defining the annual employment guidelines and must now also participate in a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the effects of the European Employment Strategy in general. I wish to say a final word about the allocation of resources for employment incentive measures. The use of public funds must be dealt with in a balanced and extremely rigorous way. An increased budgetary appropriation in this domain would therefore appear to be something that is essential and to be welcomed. It must also be emphasised that the allocation of resources must meet real, specific needs and take account of the implementation of the budget for each heading.

Political group: PPE-DE
I would like to congratulate Mrs Van Lancker on producing an excellent report. I have heard from some quarters that having read the report, they agree with the diagnosis but not with the prescription. I take the view that unless we follow this prescription then the prognosis is not good for the stated aim of the social agenda, which is to make sure that social policy has a full and equal place alongside employment and economic policy. This is the prescription we need to follow. For the Socialist Group there are many very important points in this report. For us the open coordination method is very important. We want to see it strengthened in relation to employment. We want to see it also applied to social exclusion and social protection. I am glad to hear what Nicole Perry had to say to us today in that respect. Open coordination seems to be regarded by many as a soft option and I have no doubt that is why it is being supported in certain quarters. It cannot be a soft option. We will insist at every possible opportunity that it has to entail indicators and benchmarks and proper peer-group review and that there should be a part for Parliament in that procedure. We also support social dialogue but we insist that the Commission should manage that procedure properly and that where negotiations fail we should have an expeditious introduction of legislation where necessary. Paragraph 14 lists a number of points we think are important. I cannot go into them all in the time available but let me stress for us the importance of those paragraphs relating to the need to update the framework of legislation relating to restructuring. Again I was pleased to hear what Nicole Perry has said today. I have not heard similarly encouraging things so far from the Commission in relation to, for example, the need to update the European Works Council Directive, or relating to collective redundancies and transfers. We also, of course, place considerable emphasis upon the general framework relating to information and consultation to make sure that industrial change is managed with social responsibility.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is intended to define Parliament's position and, as such, to help with the work of the Convention, which is already concerning itself in very great depth with the simplification of European lawmaking, especially in its Working Group IX. There is no doubt that this is a matter of great urgency, as, at the end of the day, the public want to understand Europe, and it is intended that Europe should become more readily understood. I am sure that, in the course of its discussions on shaping the actual content of the Constitutional Treaty, the Convention will give a great deal of attention to the issue of the typology and hierarchy of acts. As regards this report, there are just three critical observations that I want to make. The report describes a hierarchy of five types of act in the European Union: constitution, organic laws, agreements in international law, laws, framework laws and their implementing regulations. Paragraph 1 sets out this five-type hierarchy in terms of three principles, something that I find rather confusing and hardly likely to simplify matters, but the public will perhaps forgive us for it. They will be less inclined to forgive us if we put before them what are manifestly tax-raising powers for the European Union without actually calling them that. In paragraph 6, the own resources decision is described as being an organic law. The procedure for enacting organic laws is set out in paragraph 9, according to which it is envisaged that the own resources decision would no longer need to be ratified by the national parliaments. We could have a tremendous argument about the introduction of tax-raising powers for the European Union, but I do not believe that it is acceptable, even with the best will in the world, for it to be simply decided on, along with much else, under the heading of ‘typology and hierarchy of acts’. That proposals to fundamentally change the European Union's confederal nature should be put forward under this heading and in this report, is something I regard as highly dubious. Paragraph 5 abandons the hitherto valid principle that the Member States are masters of the Treaties, the objective behind this being that their consent should no longer be required when powers are transferred in future. Instead, a qualified majority of Member States is to be sufficient. By its very nature, though, such a thing would be an empowerment to seize power at the European level, and I have serious doubts as to whether that is what is intended. I want to make it abundantly clear that German constitutional law would prevent consent being given to such a treaty.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, first of all, should we hurry to forge closer bonds with Egypt, assuming that unanswered questions and miscarriages of justice will fade away and resolve themselves, before we have stopped and thoroughly examined what exactly is at the heart of the State i.e. the way it treats its citizens: the cases of fundamental human rights abuse, the 52 men put on trial for their homosexuality, for Egypt wanting 'to protect order and its national values', the conviction of 23 of these men, the repression of Christians by Islamic extremists which is allowed to go unpunished, the case of Dr Saad El-din Ibrahim and other intellectuals imprisoned for having used funds that we, the European Union, gave them. Moreover, correspondence with the President of the People's Assembly of Egypt and the Ambassador in Brussels only seemed to underline Egypt's complacency on this matter and eagerness to fudge and gloss over the issues. Does Parliament condone violations of the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and freedom of association whether it be social, political, religious or sexual? For that is what we are saying if we gloss over the human rights issue. We must send out an unequivocal message that such blatant abuses of fundamental human rights cannot, must not, and will not be tolerated by the European Community.

Political group: PSE