GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, this report is good, the Commission proposal is a good one, and, although you, Commissioner, can be thanked for this, permit me one comment. I found in the report the word ‘Überalterung’. I do not know what that is in Greek, English, or any other language, but in German it amounts to quite offensive discrimination against older – or as the word in question would have it, superannuated – people. When one is no longer as young and beautiful as you are, but, like me, is in one's seventieth year, that sort of thing causes an enormous amount of anguish. Let us at last stop using these stupid expressions about the superannuation or geriatrification of Europe. Even though you can read it all over the media, it is quite simply not true. Never have there been so many people alive in Europe as there are today and never before has there been such high life expectancy as there is now. As recently as 150 years ago, average life expectancy was around 40 years, and now it is 80. Any girl born today has the chance to live to a hundred. People today have the good fortune to be able, at long last, to live to an age that has in fact always been genetically possible. So let us stop talking about any geriatrification of Europe or about its superannuation. I assume that this has simply escaped your notice. Please stop talking about people being superannuated. Let me make another comment. In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I tabled a whole series of amendments, all of which were adopted. I am very pleased about that. There is one amendment of which I am particularly proud, Commissioner, and it is one that I should especially like to commend to you. It has to do with something that is a quite splendid addition to what has been achieved in terms of family and social policy – continued remuneration for one week in the year in the event of a person remaining at home to care for a close family member – perhaps a parent or grandparent – who has become ill. That is the law in Austria, so that any working person can stay at home for one week in the year to care for his or her elderly family members. I think it is a great thing that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted this amendment. I hope that we will do the same when we vote tomorrow. Commissioner, I commend this matter to your care.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in voting as we did just now as a group on the Cameroon question, we were assuming that other groups would help us in raising Guatemala, the position of Rios Montt and the very serious human rights violations next month; we should also like to propose that this topic, major reports and the situation in Congo be dealt with next month, since we are directly involved as the EU and it appears that next month will be possible. In that case we can deal now with the serious situation regarding the floods in France. We therefore agree with the substitution proposal.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, while we are thanking Air France for the fact that the aircraft flew between Amsterdam and Strasbourg, I would point out that this was probably because the flight between Copenhagen and Strasbourg was cancelled. On this occasion, it was therefore a case of one man’s loss being another man’s gain. I would also ask you to consider the possibility that Air France might not have enough aircraft, given that the cancellation was due to technical reasons.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President. You are quite right in what you have just said. It is, of course, most encouraging to hear different views on this important issue but then, as you see, other Members ask for the floor and we really should turn our attention to the agenda and get down to work. The Commission is here, Mrs Reding is waiting to report and we really should get down to work. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my younger days I was one of those who had a vision of a European Community which was not an exclusive club of Western European states but one which embraced the whole of Europe. I am therefore immensely proud to stand here as my group's Vice-President responsible for enlargement at the moment that this vision becomes a reality. What a transformation to Europe we are seeing! Twelve years ago six of the ten candidate countries did not even exist as sovereign nation states. Now they will be working with us for peace, prosperity, stability and freedom. The Socialist Group will be saying 'yes' to the ten countries. This is not a romantic 'yes', it is a 'yes' which is a result of 15 years of profound economic and social change, 10 years of cooperation and preparation and more than 5 years of tough and difficult negotiations. It is a 'yes' which is a reward for the immense hardships suffered by the peoples of the candidate countries during their painful economic and social transition. It is a 'yes' which confirms that all ten countries have succeeded in fulfilling the political, economic and legislative criteria for membership of the Union through their persistence and hard work. It is a 'yes' that will see the EU enriched by the enormous cultural and intellectual traditions of the new countries and by their unique political and historical heritage: the battling Baltics – David to the Soviet Union's Goliath; the Prague spring; the Hungarian uprising; Solidarity; brave Malta – the George Cross island, freedom's bastion in the darkest days of the Second World War; and people like my good friend, Vytenis Andriukaitis, from Lithuania, whose family led the resistance to the Soviets and suffered in exile and for whom now this represents the end of that nightmare. When confronted by all of this I can only echo Shakespeare's words in The Tempest: 'O, wonder!... O brave new world, That has such people in't.' Our job now is to build that brave new world. It will not come by accident. The candidates must continue to strive to be ready for the obligations of membership, particularly in the fight against corruption. We have to show the imagination and courage to embrace institutional, political and economic reform. Failure to do so will see the brave new world collapse into stagnation and mutual recriminations. Today is a new beginning. We must not miss the opportunities this new beginning brings. I can conclude by no better commentary than that of Shakespeare in Julius Caesar: 'There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries; on such a full sea we are now afloat; and we must take the current ... when it serves, or lose our ventures'.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, I find myself with the unexpected privilege this evening of speaking second in this debate. I speak on behalf of Mr Gargani, the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, in whose name our opinion stands. That is due to the chivalry of my colleague, Mr Koukiadis, who is here tonight and who is the original draftsman of the opinion. He tried in vain to persuade our committee to support the thrust of the Commission proposals. By a convincing majority the Committee on Legal Affairs voted in a series of sensible modifications that would have blunted some of the harm that this directive, if it is not changed, is going to do to the economy and employment throughout the European Union. I thank Mr Koukiadis for doing the decent thing and laying down his report. As the second speaker, I want to pay tribute to Mrs van den Burg. I have not had the pleasure of working with her before. She has worked in a very open-handed and friendly way. As she said, she has taken advice from a lot of people. Unfortunately, she has not listened to that advice. I am pleased that a number of other groups have supported the thrust of our amendments and I thank members of my own political family for going along with some of our ideas. The problem is that, as amended, the proposal from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs does not achieve the sort of flexibility that its advocates, the Commission and the rapporteur, were claiming. It has become more intrusive – there is more regulation. My concern about this report is that it fails to accept that high-quality temporary work, delivered by a caring and well-run agency, is not just a second best for employment. I wish to conclude by thanking the Committee on Employment for accepting one of my amendments which states: 'Member States shall transpose these provisions in a manner consistent with promoting job creation and making temporary agency work more attractive, recognising the different circumstances pertaining to their own territory'. If you had achieved that, I would have been delighted to support the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, until a few years ago, any attempt at dialogue with the Council or the Commission over Echelon would be cut short on the pretext that it was just a rumour in the press on which there was no comment to be made. After the work of the Echelon committee, the European Union finally acknowledged this interception system exists, and the subject of this debate – as Mrs Flesch rightly pointed out at the beginning of the debate – is Echelon. Nothing more, nothing less, so let us not beat about the bush. I have nothing more to say, except that, having heard Mr von Boetticher and all the other Members speak, I associate myself with what they have said and agree with them, for they have already given a comprehensive picture of what was not done after that work had been carried out. We poured time and human resources into the issue but we have very little to show for it, for, until today, neither the Commission nor the Council have made any effort to protect the citizens. There is another dimension to the problem: companies and institutions, with all the human and material resources available to them, are quite able to protect themselves, but the real message of the Echelon committee was that the citizens and their privacy need to be protected, that there is a fundamental right to privacy. Well then, thus far, nothing has been done in Europe in this area and I feel that the failure of the institutions and Parliament itself to take any practical steps regarding Echelon and the matter of interception of communications damages their legitimacy. The legitimacy of our institutions is truly diminished by this. If I may be so bold, it is my opinion that the Council and the Commission should, at least, consider drawing up a framework decision protecting the citizens from arbitrary interception of communications and giving them the right to plead their cause before a court, to appeal to a national court for prosecution of these types of interception.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, the Commission appears to have made a sound proposal, but in actual fact, this is not a sound proposal. It may possibly prevent fraud because there is no longer an incentive for farmers to pocket the higher flax premium instead of set-aside or cereals premiums. The only problem is that if you cut the flax premium to the level of the cereals premium and the set-aside premium, then no more flax or hemp will be cultivated in the EU and that will be that. But if you introduce processing aid, where, in your view, fraud cannot be committed – and incidentally it can actually, but let us assume for now that it cannot – then the result might be that the raw material is grown outside the EU and imported. If we want to ensure that flax is cultivated here, then we need to do precisely what we have proposed here, what the rapporteur has proposed, namely to go back to the level of the cereals premium. When proof is then furnished that processing has taken place the amount is doubled, and this proof will not require very many checks because it has to be provided by those who wish to have this premium. I should like to make the following comment on the maximum quantities: the fact that the budget has expanded because of fraud – and here the Commission has not distinguished itself in terms of controls – is not something of which we can approve. Obviously, we have to push back the tide of fraud and the money which has been lost because of fraud needs, of course, to be traced. But the overall budget for this important, environmentally-friendly crop needs to be increased, and that is why the quotas which are now being laid down are inappropriate. Mr Fischler, I am curious to hear whether you are going to accept the proposals made by the rapporteur – and I should like to thank her for her report. You know what procedure this is. If you say that you cannot accept them, we will react tomorrow and then we will have to negotiate this sound proposal from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development at another level.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleased to endorse your congratulations and I thank the rapporteur for his report, because integration of the European Development Fund in the budget is a long-cherished wish. Not only because of the lack of transparency, both in the decision-making and in the execution. We have to concede that the procedures were particularly cumbersome and we have found that hopeless delays have therefore occurred, to such an extent in fact that a backlog of EUR 11 billion in allocated funds has arisen for which the payments have yet to be made. It is especially shocking for public opinion to discover that poverty in the developing countries is increasing all the time and that there is no efficient way of channelling the money and of supporting the necessary projects directly and efficiently. We consider this budgetisation highly desirable, although we are aware that it is not a magic wand. So far it has been a matter of voluntary contributions and we wonder whether we will secure the guarantees that the funds will be kept up. The Commissioner has certainly promised us that this will be the case, but provision still has to be made for the relevant mechanisms. Securing the level of the funds is one thing, but the guarantee that we will now really have a say in the assessment that the millennium goals will be taken seriously is another. For me it is not at all a question of reducing the autonomy of the ACP countries in this respect. Any intervention would after all have to take place on the basis of a jointly agreed Country Strategy Paper and a Community action plan in which we must take the participation of the ACP countries seriously. I understand the disquiet of our ACP partners in part, but it would nonetheless be a disappointment if budgetisation were to be to the benefit of transparency but there were to be no efficiency in the spending of the funds. I therefore hope that we shall succeed both in maintaining the level and increasing the efficiency and the transparency.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should very much like to thank the rapporteur for his splendid report. I hope that the Commission will use it in its reform work. The process of reform has been going on for some time, and something like a state of emergency seems to prevail in the Commission. The Commission’s administration simply does not function particularly well. Naturally, there are good, capable employees in the Commission, and they are in the majority. But we need radical reform. There is too little action and too much unnecessary bureaucracy. People should have clearly-defined powers to take decisions for which they should also be accountable. The Financial Regulation should be amended. We agree that we should have better control of the finances. It is just a question of how. The Commission and the Committee of Independent Experts are in favour of completely doing away with ex ante financial control. We should be careful about this. We should retain some form of ex ante financial control. It is not enough simply to carry out spot checks once the money has been spent. This would allow too many anomalous projects to slip through. Instead, we should be reforming and decentralising control. The Commission does not have enough staff. As Members of the European Parliament, we must have the courage to explain to our governments and people back home that the Commission’s staff resources are not at all adequate for the tasks which have been assigned to it. And the Commission should be able to refuse new tasks if it does not also get the extra staff it needs. The staffing system is too rigid. There should be a more frequent rotation of employees, especially at the top of the hierarchy. It should also be much easier to sack inefficient and incompetent employees. I am therefore very pleased that the disciplinary procedure is to be reformed. After all, the very bad experiences so far with disciplinary proceedings show all too clearly how necessary it is that we carry out reforms.

Political group: PSE
We voted against this report because this report does nothing other than apply the Schengen accords, something we do not wish to approve, either directly or indirectly. Whilst claiming to facilitate the freedom of movement of individuals within the European Union, the Schengen accords actually put up barriers along the path to achieving this freedom of movement, at least for those who are from countries outside the European Union. We are in favour of total freedom of movement of individuals, whether or not they are from the European Union. In fact, the European treaties guarantee the freedom of movement of capital, regardless of its origin, to the extent that they allow profits from arms trafficking, drug trafficking, even terrorism, to be laundered on European territory as long as the sacrosanct banking secrecy and business secrecy are protected. Our vote expresses our opposition to a Europe built for capital, and not for individuals. Report Goebbels (A5-0302/2001):

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome the Commission proposal and I wish to thank Mrs Miguélez Ramos for her very well prepared report. The Commission proposal is especially necessary in order to clarify the new international instruments adopted last year by the International Maritime Organisation. The tragic events of 11 September showed that every production sector, mode of transport or building can easily fall prey to a terrorist attack. Preventive and protective action is also urgently needed for other threats to security at sea, such as piracy and sabotage. It is nevertheless important that the EU does not needlessly rush to adopt measures but instead calmly keeps to the framework of the timetable that has already been drawn up by the IMO, which, as it is, is very rigorous and demanding. In today’s changing world I see international cooperation as being of priority importance in order to improve security for ships and port facilities and a far better alternative to the unilateral measures that were adopted earlier on. It is in the EU’s own interests to operate in multilateral systems, whilst reinforcing them at the same time. Furthermore, cooperation with Russia is particularly important. I share Commissioner Bolkestein’s concern regarding the possible negative effects on trade that unilateral security measures would have. There is a danger that the unilateral agreements in the container sector made in collaboration by American and some European ports will distort competition. In this regard I welcome the current negotiations between the Commission and the United States of America to cover the Container Security Initiative agreements. The Commission proposal does not really differ in content from the IMO instruments that have been drawn up exclusively for international shipping. For that reason, I think it is questionable whether the same instruments should be interpreted in the EU to apply equally to domestic transport services in the Member States. Taking the costs and other difficulties resulting from compliance with security measures such as these into account, I see no need to go any further than the IMO conventions. The power of decision to apply measures to individual countries’ domestic transport systems must in any case remain with the Member States, which are best placed to assess the situation. It would, for example, be absurd if ferries operating in the internal waters of Finland, with its thousands of lakes, had to endure thorough security checks if there were no particular threats to security anyway.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Prodi has referred to the referendum in Denmark, the outcome of which I believe reflects a malaise that extends far beyond that country. Many European citizens are questioning the point reached by the Union, its objectives and even the logic of integration. We say that there is a crisis of confidence with regard to the institutions, and I feel that this crisis is due in particular to the disparity between the expectations of society and the ability to live up to them. While growth continues apace, inequalities have become increasingly intolerable. The call for equitable distribution has become even louder. There are also great expectations as concerns cooperation, transparency and public debate. We must learn to listen more closely. Despite the method adopted, which I welcome, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which should be the social foundation stone of the European Union would not seem to match up either to the expectations or to the objectives set. Despite the constructive changes made in the final draft produced by the Convention, there is still great disparity between the contributions made by citizens' associations, their hopes and the results actually achieved. I would even go so far as to say that this Charter contains many ambiguities. There is still time to enhance it and, in doing so, to be far more receptive to the proposals made by many associations, trade unions and the progressive movement. The same applies to the priorities of employment, social integration and lifelong learning – highly important objectives that have been set, but whose realisation has foundered on the cold logic of the stability pact, on the dogma of liberalisation. Following on from what my fellow Member, Mr Wurtz, has said, I would like to stress the extent to which the vital reform of the institutions should address the issue of making the Union more democratic. There has been one gaping omission in all the remarks made on the subject of how it would be possible to create institutions enabling citizen participation. This is the prerequisite for a Europe of the peoples that is built to last.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I thank the President-in-Office of the Council for his reply. I have taken note of the warnings given by the Council to the Albanian Government and I trust that the Council will closely monitor the application of the necessary preconditions for smooth developments in relations between Albania and the European Union as regards respect for human and political rights in Albania.

Political group: PPE-DE