GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, since enlargement of the European Union is an undeniable reality, we must also take the opportunity it provides to produce a balance-sheet of the Union’s own policies, given that many inequalities still remain within the Union and that enlargement cannot be allowed to take place at the expense of the poorest members of the current European Union. I feel that the proposal put forward by the Commission for the negotiations on farming is, on the whole, a reasonable one. The most controversial issue is that of the implementation of current direct aid, created by the 1992 and 1999 reforms of the CAP to compensate for the price reductions decided on at that time. Looking at the matter objectively, these countries are not entitled to receive this type of aid. This aid was created with the sole aim of compensating for price reductions. In the new Member countries, however, not only have there been no price reductions, there are even likely to be price increases. The mistake the Commission proposal makes is to suggest that the current model of direct aid should be maintained beyond 2006. The current system of direct aid under the CAP was justified in the medium-term to prevent falls in farmers’ incomes. This is unsustainable, however, in the long term because, since not all forms of farm production can continue to expand, it is highly discriminatory. By 2006, therefore, we need to create a new system of aid for agriculture based on farming’s multifunctional role in society. Will this mean, however, that no aid must now be granted to the new countries of the East? It does not. I feel that the Commission proposal to present 25% of aid at this stage will be acceptable if this aid is paid out on an objective and horizontal basis – for example, on the basis of farms or of areas – without tying this to specific crops or forms of production. If this is done, the proposal will already be more technically consistent and will be fairer, both in the present and in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know why the Spanish Minister feels he is being accused. I value the work that is being done for Kaliningrad, but I believe that, in common with the Commission, we have reason to wonder whether we are achieving the result we desire. Sometimes, it seems as if our relationship with Russia is merely a ‘give’ relationship on our part and a ‘take’ relationship on theirs. Unfortunately, we have many examples of this. One is the northern dimension in which, as the Commissioner also pointed out in another context, we only have a plan of action, but no action plan. The problem is that we have repeated time and again that we wish to achieve results. Perhaps these summits are a reminder of the EU’s own in which the decisions are based on wanting to achieve something later. The real results, which is to say those that should be of crucial importance to the environment I live in, are not apparent, however. In this area, I would appeal to the President and the Commission: the whole of the EU needs to make an active and vigorous contribution.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, you have announced that these goings-on will be investigated. I would also ask that this investigation should consider the claim by German magazine journalists that they have in their possession all the lists of the secretarial assistance allowances paid by the House in 2002. I would like to know how lists relating to the 2002 secretarial assistance allowances can end up in the hands of journalists and what conclusions you draw from this. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I very much agree with the last speaker. In the wake of September 11 much oppressive legislation has been forced through. This is a major problem because it seems that the rule of law is being pushed aside in the fight against terrorism. If you push the rule of law aside and ignore it you are in effect allowing the terrorists to win on another front. Today we had to vote for the third time on what was basically the same issue. This is very alarming because it showed that there was much unwillingness within the Council to accept the democratic will of Parliament: it obviously hoped that if it asked us enough times it would get the answer it wanted. In relation to the PNR issue, it is extremely important that citizens have the right to data protection. We should have the same rights as US citizens if there is any agreement, that is fundamental. Regarding the issue of Christianity versus Islam there is a major problem. This is not acceptable. Europe has to allow all people to live freely within society, whether they are Muslim, Christian or of no religious belief. Everybody should be entitled to equal rights. There is a lot of hypocrisy regarding people from the new Member States. All 15 of the 'old' Member States have introduced measures restricting the rights of the new countries' citizens coming in as regards whether they can get jobs, travel or benefit from social services in the 'old' Member States. This is creating double standards, which is a major problem. Finally, on the issue of third country nationals, we have a major problem throughout the European Union with this 'Fortress Europe' mentality, keeping out the so-called non-desirables: non-whites, non-westerners or non-Christians. In all countries we have a major problem with more and more oppressive legislation being introduced. Even things like the Geneva Convention are being pushed aside in the interests of keeping people out of Europe. We have to take down the barriers. We have to allow Europe to be open and we must help these people. We have to look at why they are fleeing from their own countries. That is the way to look at peace, security and justice for all.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am especially pleased to add to the words of thanks that have already been expressed to Mrs van den Burg and I would once again like to underline how important it is that we have this directive. Some fellow MEPs have already said that the temporary sector is a very fast growing sector. If we want to ensure that this sector delivers flexibility in the labour market, at the same time delivers quality jobs for the people who work in it and also does not put permanent recruitment under any pressure, then we need sound protection rules, at European level too. Mr Pronk is right in saying that the systems and the regulations in the different Member States differ. Moreover, some Member States offer considerable protection and this we may certainly not undo. That is why the non-regression clause in the directive is so important. There are, however, also very many Member States that do not offer good protection, Mrs De Rossa made full reference to this. Nor is this a one-size-fits-all directive. There is scope here for various national choices. I would very briefly like to make three comments. First of all, in connection with what Mr Hughes has just said, for us, it is crucial that temporary workers are protected from day one. That was, Commissioner, a point that I found weak in the Commission’s proposal. You will therefore understand that it is absolutely unacceptable for us to agree to the Liberal amendment that excludes temporary work up to one year. That would make the directive an empty shell. Secondly, it is important that temporary workers enjoy good employment conditions. I still think that equal treatment is best served by the principle by which, as far as essential employment conditions are concerned, a temporary worker is compared with workers of a user company. However, then of course, we must also ensure that our definition of essential employment conditions is sound. Such a definition without the concept of remuneration? That takes the biscuit. That would completely nullify the principle of equal treatment. Thirdly, an exception to the principle of equal treatment is acceptable, but only where the systems concerned provide good guarantees internally in the temporary sector itself, also for the period between two contracts. The countries where this is properly regulated usually guarantee contracts for an indefinite period of time or long contracts. I should like to warn our fellow MEPs from the against stepping onto a slippery slope by reducing these guarantees too much. Commissioner, just like you, I hope that we as legislators will be able to do what the social partners have been unable to do, that is to guarantee all temporary workers throughout the European Union solid social protection. That will then definitely be to the credit of Mrs van den Burg too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am delighted that we are having a debate on this vitally important subject. It is clear that many Member States still have much to do to reduce high levels of unemployment. It is very easy to set targets and to make promises – as Chancellor Schröder has found out – but the jobless need action and not words. I agree with the rapporteur that job creation is a major challenge. I disagree with his conclusions that we need the Commission to examine anew the causes of low economic growth and to submit suggestions to reverse it. The causes are clear, the actions required are clear. What is needed is the political will to make it happen. There is, however, no solution to unemployment in strengthening the role of the social partners to quote the rapporteur 'in all matters' regarding the organisation of work and working conditions – though I am sure the trade unions are always looking for such an opportunity. The social partners may well have a very useful role in some countries and in some cases but, given that the majority of employment growth is coming from SMEs whose employees are beholden neither to big business nor to big unions, it is hard to see how such a move would be positive for job creation. Certainly we must all put job creation at the top of our own agendas. I earnestly hope that colleagues from all sides of the House, and indeed the Commissioner, will reflect on this when we are voting on the Atypical Workers Directive in a few weeks time.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as it has been nine months since the disaster at the AZF factory in Toulouse, we could have come to a decision on a new directive which we could have called ‘Toulouse I’, as was suggested in October 2001. Since we do not have a Toulouse I, we shall have to make do with Seveso II and its revised version. However, we do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water either. According to the results of the inquiry, the AZF factory did not comply with the regulations required under Seveso II. It is therefore difficult to come to any decision as to its effectiveness, and it is because the are willing to ensure maximum safety on high-risk sites that we support Mr Lisi’s report and congratulate him on it. It actually improves upon the revision proposed by the Commission, and amongst other things it will give us a better grasp of the issue of ammonium nitrates. One very positive point is that the new classification will increase the number of sites falling within the scope of the Seveso Directive. We are also seeking support for Amendments Nos 49 to 55, and particularly the last two. Amendment No 54 will make it possible to extend the safety margins around new high-risk installations, to include, amongst other things, apartment blocks, transport routes, industrial buildings and recreation areas. Thus amended, the revised Seveso II Directive could be a valuable tool in the management of the territory of the European Union. The second amendment which I should like to defend concerns the calculation of appropriate minimum safety distances between future buildings covered by the Directive and the sensitive areas listed in Paragraph 1. We believe, in fact, that it is essential that the Commission should, within three years, submit a methodology designed in conjunction with the Member States, in order to establish this minimum safety distance. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to remind you that the French Government decided, yesterday, to re-open part of the AZF factory in Toulouse, despite the fact that the public is campaigning to have it moved away from residential areas. When the amended Seveso II Directive becomes applicable, AZF would be closed on the grounds that it had not applied European legislation. The European Union would then be in line with the public and its safety demands.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is strange to hear all the talk about European defence when we do not even have a common European foreign policy. I think that that is the task to which we first have to put our minds, and I should like to see us beginning to talk about what our priorities are to be. I think the main priority should be for the EU to be the mainstay of an international legal order and of international agreements and for it to be among those backing international weapons control. Some of those priorities have been given all too little weight for many years, and it is an obvious task for a specifically cooperative organisation like the EU, which is based upon agreements between old enemies. We must continue that tradition, extend it to the international level and ensure that we become the mainstay of the UN so that international law again comes to prevail. I should like to hear what the Council’s and the Commission’s plans are in anticipation of the UN meeting in July on the control of light weapons, for this is one of those areas in which the EU could have a role to play. We are of course one of the main producers of these weapons, and we also try to control them. We have a code of conduct from 1998 – mentioned, I believe, by Commissioner Patten – but, of course, weapons prove, all the same, to end up in the wrong hands and on the wrong markets. We need to follow this agreement up, with the possibility of monitoring weapons throughout their life cycle. We can do this with dairy cows in the EU. Would it not be marvellous if we could do the same with weapons? What plans exist for doing so?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the talk is of a Danish solution for Ireland. That is perhaps the only way out, but it is a tragic solution that will lead to the country’s marginalisation and to its acquiring the status of a colony. It will be cutting itself off from influence but nonetheless complying with the decisions taken. It is muzzling itself and shooting itself in the foot. That is the fruit of the anti-European campaign run by nationalists and left-wing romantics and supported by reactionary Britons and former Danish communists who have always opposed European cooperation. Mr Bonde has voted against every scrap of European cooperation. He presents himself as the apostle of democracy and transparency but, until 10 years ago, he supported the most secretive system the world has ever seen and taught at the party schools in the East German dictatorship. Do not listen to him! Let us instead mobilise the large majority of citizens here in Europe who are happy to cooperate but who are dissatisfied with one thing or another and who cannot oversee what we are doing because the treaties are unreadable and unclear and because we too, here in Parliament, interfere in every conceivable matter, with the result that people cannot see an end to it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, today we are extending the borders of equal treatment to all aspects of women’s working life, which means not only employment, but also the whole training and career cycle and working conditions. Insofar as equality between men and women is an objective and also a mission for the European Union, we need to adapt, update and also think up new strategies, new legislative texts that will enable us to complete this task effectively. The article on sexual harassment should be highlighted, and I will not expand on this point as it has already been sufficiently highlighted. It is also important, in my opinion, to define direct and indirect discrimination, and to establish positive action as a tool for balancing out inequalities, a transitory tool until equality is achieved. From the start, the European Community has aimed to eradicate unequal treatment, but unfortunately today there are still blatant inequalities in this area on which I will not expand either. An international organisation has said that, at the pace things are moving, we could achieve equality in four or five centuries, and I do not think that any of us here are prepared to wait such a long time. We need to intervene with positive measures such as this in order to change an order that is profoundly unfair and that is contrary to the development of our societies. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has done a rigorous and comprehensive job, which substantially improves the Commission’s proposal. I congratulate everyone on this, especially Mrs Hautala.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, why is the gulf between the European Parliament and the European governments so wide? There is an excellent resolution on the table which refers to the many necessary reforms. Indeed, majority decision-making as a rule and reinforcement of the Commission and the European Parliament are essential in order for the enlarged Union to function. Cooperation should be more flexible and each Member State must retain a Commissioner. Unfortunately, the many sound proposals from Parliament are at odds with the willingness of the governments to extend the IGC agenda and reach compromises. If the European governments do not change their attitudes soon, a treaty will be drawn up in Nice which guarantees to cripple the Union once it has been enlarged. Over the past few years, many European government leaders have presented their own people with the view that the European Union is becoming too powerful and too bureaucratic and is taking away too much national sovereignty. They have contributed to a climate of Euroscepticism where there is no room for compromise. At the same time, the same politicians have decided in favour of a substantial enlargement, necessitating reforms which were declared taboo in the first place. As such, many European politicians are hostage to their own rhetoric. If the European government leaders are serious about new countries joining, they must display the necessary political courage and agree to far-reaching reforms. We are the representatives of the people. If the governments manage to narrow the gulf between themselves and Parliament, they will ultimately be able to narrow the gulf between themselves and their own people and, at the end of the day, this is what matters.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we are dealing with a very complicated matter. Although the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy submitted to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy would appear to be fairly unanimous, several points were resolved by just one vote. We could say the Committee was divided into two, with those in the minority able to see, to their immense satisfaction, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy represent their position more closely than the opinion of their own Committee. The manipulation of genes results in species and varieties which do not occur naturally. Nobody can know what will happen when genetically modified organisms are introduced into the natural environment. They might hybridise with natural varieties, or something may be produced that was not intended when the genes were manipulated. One has to exercise excessive caution. It is only reasonable to insist that all genetically manipulated organisms must be able to be traced retrospectively to an adequate extent. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety required the identity of GMOs to be specified. The Committee on Industry voices more the views of the producers and does not want this. It is furthermore in the interests of consumers that they should be allowed to choose the food they eat, and they have a right to do so. For that reason we are proposing that it should be compulsory to label GMO products as such. On that basis consumers can avoid products they do not wish to use. When the Committee on Industry voted, a position that differs from the Commission’s original proposal won by a narrow margin. It is the Committee’s opinion that labelling should be carried out in such a way that a product is labelled when it is GM-free and not when it contains genetically modified organisms. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted a different position on this from the Committee on Industry, and its views are probably a better response to the need for an increase in consumer choice.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to ask the Commissioner a question in connection with what she said a moment ago about the Viking. As far as I know, the Viking was not denied access to a port of refuge. The ship sailed to Rotterdam because it is a double-hulled ship that had sunk deeper because the double hull had flooded. The ship then sailed under its own steam to Belgian waters, which, strictly speaking, is already against the rules, and was denied access to Zeebrugge and Ostend. The owner refused to conclude a contract with the salvager. So there was a problem. This is the information I have. It would perhaps be useful if a temporary committee were to institute inquiries into incidents that have not resulted in disasters. After all, we could learn a great deal from them about how we should organise things more effectively. However, I think that the Belgian authorities, in the case involving the Viking, did not make the kind of errors that we can observe in the present case.

Political group: ELDR
The report that we are discussing today concerns the place the Member States of the European Union should occupy in the ICANN system. It is important to know that ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was created in October 1998 in order to address American dominance in internet control, including DNS (Domain Name Systems) and the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers. ICANN consists of a 19-member Board of Directors, whose directors and external members are selected on the basis of criteria that will ensure a geographical balance. ICANN consists of four advisory committees, including the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee), which includes representatives of the European Commission and the Member States. Taking these factors into consideration, it would seem obvious that the European Union must invest in order to play a crucial role in the international management of the internet, and in order to strengthen the neutrality of ICANN by means of a strong presence from the European Union, in collaboration with the United States and other governments, through the Governmental Advisory Committee. It is also important that the Board of Directors of ICANN should be geographically representative. Its representatives should be elected, and Africa should now be represented, so as to ensure that all continents are represented. I must emphasise that the management structure and legal field in which ICANN develops must be based on transparency, neutrality and independence. This means that the budgetary and financing system of this organisation must be based on criteria of clarity. It is only in these conditions that the viability of ICANN can be guaranteed. The Union must make sure that ICANN observes the protocols of WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organisation) and cooperates with WIPO in its role as a negotiator and protector of rights. I welcome the fact that the rapporteur reminds us about the importance of closing the digital divide, and of providing the widest possible access to the Internet. In effect whenever we talk about developing new telecommunications networks, we cannot come to a deadlock on this essential objective. - Martinez-Martinez Report (A5-0057/2001)

Political group: PSE