GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this is an extraordinarily involved directive with an involved previous history, as has already been said. We have had great difficulty bringing this directive to a successful conclusion. I think that the main point is that the legislation this directive is about is very different in what are very different countries, that temporary work is regulated in a very different way in the different European countries and I would like everyone to recognise that. We must nonetheless seek a solution because of the previous history and also because of the fact that we would otherwise be unable to regulate cross-border traffic. To move in the direction of the Lisbon process we must develop further the important role that temporary work can play. We have considerable experience of it in the country where I come from. It is currently still the country with the highest percentage of temporary workers and experience shows that you can deregulate, but that you must then take certain statutory measures. That is a fact. As each country needs its own balance, the directive must be relatively flexible. Thanks to the work of the rapporteur, but also thanks to the work of the two shadow rapporteurs from the , this has been achieved to a very large extent and I would therefore like to thank all three of them very much. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has also, I think, made a significant contribution, as has the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, to the achievement of a result. It is very important that there is a result, as I have already said, but there are occasionally some interfering noises. These interfering noises often come from people who are thinking only of their own situation, of their own country. This we must prevent. This we cannot accept. Finally, Mr President, I would ask the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party to take another look at their own amendments. Amendments have been submitted in duplicate or triplicate, and contradictory amendments have also been tabled to the same Paragraph. This is no way to negotiate. We cannot deal with codecision this way. I would like to ask whether they would like to go through their own amendment list one more time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first I want to compliment the rapporteur, Charlotte Cederschiöld, on drawing up this report, which is an excellent point of departure for increasing protection by penal sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro. The euro will enter into circulation on 1 January 2002 and will become one of the world’s most important reserve currencies. Due to its importance on a world scale, the euro will be particularly exposed to the risk of counterfeiting and forgery. This draft decision therefore lays down a set of minimum standards intended to harmonise criminal law in this field and make its application by each Member State simpler and more effective. It also provides for the euro to be protected even prior to its circulation, which will fill a gap in legislation in some Member States. I expressly support the rapporteur as regards the need to extend this protection to national currencies which can continue to be exchanged after they have been withdrawn from circulation. This means that every Member State must guarantee the establishment of effective, adequate penal sanctions, which act as a deterrent against the offences covered by the draft framework decision. As to the proposal to establish a maximum custodial sentence of not less than eight years, I do not think that this will raise any problems as far as my country is concerned, even though the maximum sentence for counterfeiting under its criminal code is currently five years in prison, as it has already expressed willingness to make this amendment. I also call on those few Member States still harbouring reservations to resolve them so that a decision can rapidly be reached on this matter, for the reasons our rapporteur set out earlier when she called for this to be done. Mr President, this draft framework decision represents the first time a common proposal on crime has been put forward, with legislation to be applied by all fifteen Member States at the same time. We are therefore making progress towards the aim of developing and confirming the status of the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, as expressed at Tampere.

Political group: PPE-DE
Reducing the fisheries capacities of the Member States, mainly by reducing the fishing fleet and fisheries in general, is still one of the constituent components of the new common fisheries policy. In other words, it follows on from the previous CFP, which has already had a serious impact on small and medium-sized fishing enterprises. The proposed revision will result in more of the same, because more fishing vessels will be scrapped and there will be less or no potential for modernising the remaining fleet, especially in small and medium-sized undertakings. The real purpose of the provisions allegedly being introduced to protect fish stocks and sustainability is to restrict the access of small-scale fishermen to fishing grounds, which will be handed over for big business and its fisheries operations to plunder. In order to ensure that this endeavour is adopted without opposition, it is accompanied by so-called early retirement and retraining packages for fishermen, who will move into other professions. The prospects and consequences of the new CFP will be disastrous for areas of the ΕU historically and economically dependent on fisheries. The new measures will speed up the rate at which fishermen abandon fisheries, they will lose a significant portion of their income, unemployment will rise and the exodus from remote and island areas will increase. - Attwooll report (A5-0228/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as I am taking the floor just hours after the terrible accident, I must say just how distressed the Greek representatives are and how much they grieve the tragic loss of the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister, Yannos Kranidiotis, killed while performing his duty: he was a remarkable politician and European visionary who worked hard for peace and co-operation in the Balkans and for reconciliation between Greece and Turkey and who was once himself a Member of the European Parliament. I personally succeeded him in February 1997 in the European Parliament when he assumed his services as Deputy Foreign Minister. Madam President, please forgive me for intervening in this way and for being so overcome by emotion. Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mrs Halonen, I found your speech, which included specific recommendations, particularly satisfying, since it strengthens my conviction that Tampere may prove to be a key event, a landmark on the way towards European integration. We hope that, like the European Parliament, the Council will send a clear signal to the citizens of Europe, reassuring them that the European Union is indeed interested in and seeks to promote their vital interests, such as heightened internal security, freedom of movement, free access to justice, the fight against international organised crime, cross-border controls and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights. The Tampere Council meeting can and must take advantage of possibilities provided by the Treaty of Amsterdam. It must make substantial progress on vital issues such as, firstly, the harmonisation of immigration and asylum policy, with a view both to securing better protection for immigrants and granting them rights; secondly, the issue of equitable burden sharing amongst Member States in hosting displaced persons, particularly from crisis areas, a very recent example being the Balkans; and thirdly, the issue of reinforcing internal security for EU citizens not only by police measures. Finally, I believe that the time has come to adopt the relevant proposals put forward by Greece, which include the introduction of speedy access to justice for citizens, using alternative means such as arbitration and pre-trial conciliation, and also by creating a harmonised system of public order and a way of resolving differences, based on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for fundamental freedoms and rule of law.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our rapporteur, Mrs Buitenweg, deserves a huge pat on the back for her excellent report and the skilful manner in which she has led the consultation and negotiations. We should, therefore, adopt this report without further delay. This directive forms part of a larger package which implements Article 13 of the EC Treaty. As others have already mentioned, this Article does not only pertain to combating discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, but also based on other grounds. I can understand why the Commission has decided to include the fight against racial discrimination in a separate draft directive. I can also see why we are discussing this document expeditiously now and why, hopefully we shall be adopting it later today. Far harder to accept is the fact that this draft directive against racial discrimination applies over a broader social range and, in terms of content, comprises stronger legal guarantees and control mechanisms than the second draft directive which is still in the pipeline and which is designed to fight other types of discrimination. Together with the time lapse between the discussion of both draft directives, this difference in content entails the risk that there will be a hierarchy of types of discrimination. This would give out the wrong political message which would, in particular, have an adverse effect on the fight against discrimination on grounds such as age, handicap and sexual orientation. If anything, these so-called more recent factors deserve more, not less, attention. I would therefore like to see the Commission and Council pledge their willingness to eliminate this form of discrimination between grounds for discrimination. I have even less appreciation for the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of discrimination on the basis of sex throughout the package which the Commission presented in November, as if the fight against this was done and dusted. It was probably for fear of stating the obvious that no such mention was made. In fact, there was no such risk. Existing European legislation governing the equal treatment of men and women only pertains to the sphere of work and is still lacking in many other areas which, especially if we compare it to the directive which we are discussing today with regard to racial discrimination, need attention as a matter of urgency. There is not enough time to list them all here, but I do not have the impression that a lack of knowledge on the part of the Commission concerning this matter is the problem. I therefore hope that the Commissioner will pledge that she will start this exercise within the foreseeable future and will present proposals soon, as a result of which the equal treatment of the sexes in and out of the work sphere, but especially outside the work sphere, will be aligned to the directive which we are discussing, and will hopefully be adopting, here today.

Political group: PSE
All Members of the House benefit from free medical insurance. It is a sad example of a failure of solidarity between generations that an alliance principally composed of s and has voted against even an investigation into extending the system to retired Members. - Report Manders (A5-0145/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, in adopting the Laeken Declaration convening the Convention, the summit has made a decision of historical significance for the future of the European Union. It is particularly noteworthy that none of the numerous open political questions on the future of the European Union have been declared off-limits and that the Convention mandate can also be seen as marking the beginning of the process of developing a European constitution. A further reason why the convening of the Convention is a milestone in European politics is that it will consign the policy of secret diplomacy behind closed doors, of non-transparent decision-making and haggling in marathon night sittings – as happened most recently at the Nice Summit – to the past, hopefully once and for all! In my opinion, it is impossible to overestimate the significance of the fact that a majority of the members of the Convention will be democratically-elected members of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, that it will meet in public and talk to all kinds of organisations from civil society, and that the candidate countries will be involved in drafting proposals for the most far-reaching reform in the European Union's history. This provides the opportunity for controversial issues to be discussed in a genuine pan-European context and thus for us to have a broad-based public debate on the future of the EU. Since, however, a debate of this kind only comes to life if the pros and cons are discussed openly, I should like to refer once again to a position of this Parliament, namely our call for political plurality to be guaranteed in the composition of the Convention. The choice of those who will represent their countries, their national parliaments or the European Parliament is of particular importance in this context, and we must ensure at all costs that the Convention does not consist solely of representatives of the large European families of parties. Diversity of opinion must be delivered, because the European Union is actually at a crossroads and the proposals to be drawn up by the Convention must in their final form really reflect a European position on the future of Europe which is supported by all of us. If the Convention is to be a success and ultimately if the European Union is to be viable in the future, it will, in my view, be crucial for us to succeed in making the European Union more democratic across the board and in strengthening the rights of individual people. It is my hope – indeed I am counting on this – that, through the commitment of all of its members and as an independent forum, the Convention will gather its own political momentum during the course of its consultations, so that the next Intergovernmental Conference will not be able simply to disregard the Convention's proposals. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I understand your arguments in favour of crossing the Alps. However, I should like to tell you that at the present time, as I am sure you are aware, the public debate on the opening of the Mont-Blanc tunnel is in full swing, and the citizens of Europe, French and Italian, are appealing to us precisely in order to plead for a different cause, for a real sustainable transport system, which is not transport by road. Do you really think – and I am asking because you have presented road transport to us as being a sustainable form of transport – do you really think, on the basis of the studies that have been carried out, that the opening of this Mont-Blanc tunnel will be strictly in line, first of all, with requirements, and secondly, with the obligations that we have entered into, in particular with regard to Kyoto?

Political group: Verts-ALE
It is important to set criteria, preconditions and limits in the matter of the employment of seafarers from third countries on Community ships. These often resemble Towers of Babel, leading to anarchy and accidents. The recent shipwrecks of the Prestige and the Tricolore prove the importance of safety at sea. The Poignant report on the proposal for a directive on the minimum level of training of seafarers is a move in the right direction because it raises the issue of the recognition of seafarers from third countries. This imposes an evaluation of the training system of each country, so that certificates of competency can be issued – and not simply an approach on an individualised basis – which will be valid for five years. A shortcoming, however, in the measures being taken is the absence of a provision to deal with the problems of unemployment and deteriorating competition among Community seafarers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, after having plundered Zimbabwe during a century of colonial domination, after having exploited its working classes and despoiled its farmers of land, the United Kingdom has left a legacy of a situation in which the best land still belongs to a few thousand rich white farmers. The major powers did not find fault with the dictatorial nature and the corruption of the regime in Zimbabwe until its dictator, Mr Mugabe, started, in order to preserve his power, to make a few demagogical gestures calling into question the privileges of the white farmers. France, which is less associated with this category of privileged people, is meanwhile continuing to unscrupulously support the dictatorship. The feigned indignation of all those who, here, are protesting against the violence of Mugabe’s regime, seems, in these circumstances, to be above all a hypocritical way of defending a handful of privileged people against the right to live of millions of farmers in that country. Even though some occupations of land by groups of poor farmers are violent, that only represents a small fraction of the violence that was imposed on them in order to despoil them. For our part, we express our protest against Mugabe’s regime, both against its dictatorial nature and its corruption, but also because that dictatorship continues to protect revolting social inequalities and the privileges of a limited section of society to which his clique and the rich white farmers belong. We do not, however, associate ourselves with this joint resolution, of which we reject both the letter and the spirit. It is up to the population of the country to settle its accounts with Mugabe and his dictatorship. It is not up to those in collusion with the privileged minority and those who conducted or supported colonial violence to give morality lessons to that country. We would also like to express our solidarity with the working population of Zimbabwe and our support for their right to take possession of all the land, without any repurchase or compensation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European Parliament’s initiative in assessing the take-up of the Structural Funds deserves praise. This highly negative assessment identifies a number of unacceptable problems in this instrument, which is so crucial for reducing inequalities in regional development. For various reasons, each one more unacceptable than the next, an excessive proportion of the available funds ends up not being used – between 30 and 60%, depending on the funds! Fortunately, Portugal has a fairly good take-up rate. This assessment identifies the reasons for this underuse, blaming both the Commission and the Member States that benefit from these funds: a lack of transition between programmes, delays in execution and the submission of projects, inadequate coordination and poor planning decisions. It also presents solutions which, in my view, should be implemented in the mid-term review of the Structural Funds, such as: the simplification of procedures, monitoring of fund use, clarification of the responsibilities of the participants, and sanctions in the event of failure to keep to the timetable and fraud. Finally, as I have previously argued in this House, this report proposes transitional measures for those regions that currently have Objective 1 status but risk losing it because of the statistical effect resulting from the entry of poorer countries. I welcome the fact that the Commission is sensitive to this injustice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the efforts of big business to rule the world, now that the Socialist camp no longer ranks as a formidable adversary, the anti-grass roots policy punishing workers in developed countries and plundering the riches of the developing world are obviously – please do not laugh, Sir – going to provoke a reaction on the streets. Despite attempts to lead and mislead, such as we have heard here from the Council and the Commission about involvement in dialogue with civil society, we are certain that this movement is set to become even more radical and to turn even more resolutely against the capitalist system. And at the same time, unbridled police violence is being used, such as that seen in Gothenburg and, even more so, in Genoa. Without wishing to play down the responsibility of the Italian government, we would point out that the suppressive measures taken in Genoa originate in the European Union with the Schengen Agreement, police collaboration, the decisions taken by the Council on 13 July and the preparations to crush demonstrations in Belgium. No matter, history teaches us that, however strong the oppressors, however much violence they use, the oppressed eventually come out on top.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This proposal for a directive is based on Article 13 of the Treaty, which authorises the EU to take action to combat discrimination, in this case discrimination based on sex. We have waited for a long time to adopt a directive on promoting equality between the sexes in areas other than work. Discrimination based on sex is rife in the access to and supply of goods and services, both in the public and private sectors. This proposal for a directive provides for prohibiting the use of gender as a factor in calculating insurance premiums and other financial services. In the insurance sector, the ‘gender’ factor is used arbitrarily for calculating risk, simply because it is a quick and cheap method. There is a further form of discrimination that must stop: women should not be penalised because they live longer, and certainly not because they have children and look after them. The insurance sector must adapt its methods of calculating premiums to the principle of equal treatment and those calculations must be based on strictly objective criteria. I consequently voted in favour of this proposal for a directive.

Political group: PPE-DE