GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not a legislative procedure, but we are discussing our position on the Commission’s Green Paper. Although we had asked for something else, the Commission has responded to the Langen report by presenting us with this Green Paper. Secondly, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs, who have approached this from many different angles in the course of the discussion process, for preparing, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, a very good resolution, and one that is likely to get majority support now that it is to be voted on by plenary. Thirdly, the question arises of what services of general interest are. We take the term to mean services for the public that are provided in the interests of all. They are meant to provide services where the market alone cannot do so on a universal basis, at a reasonable price, or, in many instances, free of charge. Services of general interest ensure security of supply. Service providers may compete among themselves, but they do not have to. Support from public funds is required. What is crucial is not who provides the services but the fact that they are provided. Services of general interest are an expression of the European social model and of the ecologically-responsible market economy. What was crucial for me was the safeguarding of the subsidiarity principle; I can endorse the Social Democrats’ Amendment No 18. I welcome the statement that the liberal professions perform services of general interest for the good of all, and I am glad that we have made it our concern that the definition of services of general interest and responsibility for them should be matters for the Member States rather than for Europe as a whole.

Political group: PPE-DE
On 8 June 2000, the Conference of Presidents of Parliament adopted the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission. The vote on this issue will be held during the July part-session, but Members of Parliament will not be given the opportunity to discuss it or to table any amendments. Without any more detailed examination or discussion within the groups, the group chairmen have adopted this framework agreement which transfers the power of decision over which documents Parliament shall have access to the Commission. This means that the elected representatives will not obtain any real insight into the legislative proceedings, but will be left in the background or on the sidelines. The group chairmen unanimously requested the Commission to grant the Members of Parliament the legal right of access to the documents which are issued in other connections. On 8 June, however, they accepted that Mr Prodi would not fulfil all the promises he made when he took office. As Members of Parliament, we ought to have the legal right to complete information. Of course, there may be justifiable exceptions that must be respected. There is no doubt that the Commission, as an executive body, is fully within its rights to investigate different points of view and prepare drafts in the form of internal working documents without the obligation to publish them. However, it ought to be beyond all doubt that, at the same time as a document is given to someone outside the Commission, Parliament should have the right to the same information. If a newspaper publishes material from documents that have been leaked, Members of Parliament cannot get access to the documents in question. Trainees at the Council of Ministers or at the offices of the Permanent Representations of the Member States have access to documents which Members of Parliament have no opportunity to consult, not even the committee and group chairmen or the rapporteurs. When Romano Prodi visited Parliament last spring to introduce himself before the present Commission was installed in office, he promised that Members of Parliament would have access to documents if they were passed on to authorities or organisations outside the Commission or leaked to the media. Because the framework agreement involves certain improvements upon current practice, it should not be rejected in its entirety. It should, however, at least contain the promises Mr Prodi made on behalf of the Commission. The closed door policy is unacceptable to the public, the elected representatives and journalists alike. Members of Parliament must fight for their rights as elected representatives.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to express my thanks to Mr Söderman for carrying out the role of European Ombudsman when it was set up and for building it up, brick by brick. I would like to welcome the new Ombudsman, who is taking on this valuable heritage. As Mrs de Palacio quite rightly said, the previous act is hard to follow, and so we now need to continue to raise the legal and cultural status and, above all, raise public awareness of the Ombudsman. I must say that we received proof of how wide this awareness is when, at the time of the election of a new Ombudsman, a large number of candidates were put forward to the European Parliament. Parliament then chose Mr Diamandouros, who will have our full support in the process of developing and consolidating the role of the Ombudsman. We certainly need to promote this role in the Member States – my country and many other Member States have no national ombudsman, unlike many other countries – and in the accession countries too. We are also considering giving our support to the forum initiative, proposed by the European Ombudsman and mentioned by the rapporteur, the Earl of Stockton. The forum should be open at all levels – local, regional and national – and should provide a great opportunity for communicating and exchanging opinions on the running of the institution. I am extremely pleased that the European Ombudsman has made another proposal too – to include among his responsibilities the enhancement of the system of non-judicial means of redress, not least in order to give substance to relations between the institutions and the citizens. What we need to do now, as I will mention again, given that I am speaking three times today, is to strengthen the bodies which defend and protect citizens’ rights. I believe that Mr Diamandouros will be able to accomplish this task. He has shown very willing and his previous experience as a national ombudsman will stand him in good stead. I would therefore like to express our thanks and our support for his future work.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Martinez Martinez report calls on Parliament to approve the Commission’s 2001 annual report on its development policy and the implementation of external assistance. We voted against the report to highlight both our opposition to the Commission’s policy and its justification. Even the report from the very official UNDP notes that the situation in most poor countries deteriorated in the previous year and that, for some of them, it is disastrous. Under these conditions, the very title of the report, which refers to development policy, is an insult to these hundreds of thousands of human beings whose situation, rather than improving, is only getting worse. The fact that the report dares to welcome the Commission’s emphasis on poverty reduction is a further insult. The amount of aid provided is pitiful; it comes nowhere near the amounts the pillage of these countries yields to oil, building and maritime traffic trusts and the countless European enterprises that are growing rich on the meagre wages paid in these countries. The report calls for specific measures to protect indigenous populations. Quite apart from the language, which is redolent of colonial times, what the poor countries, and particularly Africa, must be protected from above all, is these predators, the large cartels... (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) Report: Ebner (A5-0271/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution and I am glad that those behind the sabotage which, from 9 o’clock this morning, prevented us from carrying out our work properly and voting are no longer present to turn this Parliament into an undignified circus. Imagine if other citizens were to go about their work in the same way as those delegates who think that they have a four-day week here, even though the five-day week for the plenary meeting was agreed in Strasbourg. This Parliament has actually agreed, and I also say this to the delegates over there who want a democratic vote, that Friday will be a session day in Strasbourg. It is indeed a strange concept of democracy, and this also applies to the others who instigated this circus, if the opponents of Strasbourg are now using genuinely dirty tricks to sabotage Fridays. I was a Member of this Parliament 35 years ago and in all my time I have never seen such abuse of the Rules. One really should expect delegates to respect a democratic decision reached by majority, such as that concerning our session calendar, even if it does not suit them. But they are bad losers and they really do not care that they have prevented important resolutions being taken for the citizens of the EU and, in particular, those who are starving in Ethiopia. This latter point is especially grave and reprehensible. I hope that those who instigated this procedural circus will be punished by the voters. In the interest of forest owners, including in my own State where, to be fair, the last storm disaster was not as devastating as here, for example, in Alsace, I hope that measures will be taken by the EU, as proposed here, in order, above all, to prevent small and medium-sized enterprises going under .... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am speaking in place of my colleague, Mr Hernández Mollar and, on his behalf, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Giannakou-Koutsikou on the excellent work which she has done. It is clear that the drug problem, not only on a European level but also on a world level, requires the special attention of politicians, institutions and the whole of civil society. On 26 October, in this Parliament, the President of Colombia, a country which unfortunately has strong links with the drug problem, told us: “Drug trafficking has been the great creator of violence and has led to assassinations of the highest possible human cost to our country”. And we are not talking here about an issue which only affects the Member States nor the European Union, but an issue which directly affects human beings in any country of the world. Our first concern in this Parliament should be to point out that the responsibility is collective, that it requires collaboration, cooperation and coordination between the judicial and penal authorities and between the different continents, whether they be the European Union, Latin America, South East Asia or African countries. The second concern is that the European Union must play a greater role in the field of reducing the demand for drugs. To this end, the European Parliament, in this resolution, has highlighted and strengthened the role which the European Observatory on Drugs and Drug Addiction must play by giving it greater means and resources to fulfil its objective efficiently. I would like particularly to stress the importance of the fight against traffickers who use and exploit illegal immigrants, especially on the Southern border of Europe, in Andalucia, Ceuta and Melilla, which have become a channel for drug trafficking. I would like to dedicate the third consideration to the group which is most affected by this social scourge; our young people. A recent survey carried out in my country indicated that the second greatest social problem in the eyes of our young people was, after unemployment, the drug problem. As the resolution says, drugs give rise to family problems, work problems and road accidents. If we add to this the considerable increase which has been observed in the consumption of alcohol by young people, which in many cases goes hand in hand with drug-taking, especially synthetic drugs, we can see the need to adopt urgent measures which will reverse this trend. Action in the field of education and families, economic cooperation with associations and NGOs, especially in the field of leisure and sport, will complement the actions which must banish this “pressure valve” from the lives of our young people which sometimes means that they are destroyed by something which starts out as a means of escape. But we cannot solve these problems by talk alone. Resources are required. Both the Member States and the European Union itself must prioritise, in their budgets, the economic means which will allow the implementation of the measures proposed, including prevention, suppression and rehabilitation. And unfortunately this is still not the case.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, experience has taught us that, unless you stand up and draw attention to yourself, you are likely to be forgotten, and that is what we are talking about this evening. I should like to thank my colleague for his kind, encouraging words. We all know, however, both from experience and from the discussion here this evening, that it is not down to good intentions nor women alone. There are complex structural barriers, one might even say stereotypical barriers, which have prevented women from taking a more active role in science and research. As women, we are under-represented here and none of the speakers here this evening has claimed otherwise. Science and research: anyone who wants to work here, who wants opportunities here must also be permanently available. And that is often very, very difficult for women. We need to be flexible. Women are tied to the family, children, perhaps even their husband’s place of work. We need to offer flexibility, to accommodate women and offer them the possibility for permanent further development in this fast changing area. The fifth framework programme makes a special effort to incorporate equal opportunities. Particular account must be taken of the EU’s obligation to safeguard equal opportunities in the field of science. Instruments and methods to encourage women to enter the classical natural sciences must be promoted from an early age. Women are proving their academic abilities on scientific courses and yet women scientists are still being paid less than their male counterparts. They rarely get to the top, they rarely have positions of responsibility. Scientific research by women is often held in lower esteem by committees of experts than research by their male counterparts. We have reached agreement in the House here this evening. We look forward to receiving the Commission’s report and hope that this will enable us to achieve progress for more women in science.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Sylla on his work and would also like to make two comments regarding the method I feel should be used for this report. First of all, I would like to remind you that this is the third report since an extremely important reform, which Parliament desired, which involves looking at the situation of fundamental rights in the Union in light of the Charter, and this implies a number of obligations. We have established the means – a network of experts that produces a report, normally a collective working group – but the catchword is above all the Charter and nothing but the Charter. That naturally requires the rapporteur and all those who would like this report to be adopted with broad support to ensure that it is not a pretext for political activism, that it is not an opportunity to put forward personal opinions, and that it is not a forerunner for action by lobbies that are totally unrelated. Nothing but the Charter, but all of the Charter! It is a principle that must be reasserted, as far as I am concerned. My second comment relates to the countries. This report is divided into two parts, according to EU regulation. In reality, the report forms a whole and, thus, the resolution should contain only the true substance of the report and highlight only what Parliament would like the public to remember. That would prevent nationalist reactions on the part of some of our colleagues who do not agree with their country being mentioned. Also from this point of view, it would be in our interest to ensure that the resolution contains only the important points, those that correspond, in fact, to the reasons why Parliament decided to draw up this report. It decided to draw up the report as a guardian of public liberties and so that it could answer the following question: was the Charter of Fundamental Rights as written, and not as one would like it to be written, respected during the year in question throughout the Union? That is the aim of the report. It is very important not to forget these aspects concerning the method if we want the report to be adopted with as broad a political foundation as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we have just come from the first meeting of the delegation from this Parliament that concerns itself with relations with countries such as Belarus. We have already briefly discussed the alarming situation in this country. We would like to ask Parliament to give some of its attention today to recent developments there, whereby Belarus, that is the Government of Belarus and President Lukashenko in particular, are at risk of isolating themselves still further from the international community, and in so doing from the European Union too, of course. The internal situation in Belarus gives great cause for concern. Democratic structures are not functioning and we are on the sidelines to some extent because the international community is disregarded by the authorities in Minsk. Our willingness to help to find a solution to the internal political problems and the deadlock that exists there is not being satisfactorily addressed by President Lukashenko. We also want to help to promote dialogue between the opposition and the government. We support the OSCE, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in its efforts to achieve this. Our Parliament is also involved in activities undertaken by the Assembly of the OSCE which are designed to bring about an improvement in the situation in Belarus. But where is the gesture from the President? What positive reaction has there been on the part of the government in Minsk to the efforts being made to bring about a dialogue? What we see is quite the reverse. Instead of positive gestures we see arrests, intimidation and disappearances. A climate of fear is being created. It gets very difficult to find a compromise in a situation of this kind. We are in fact prepared to stretch our standards a little in the interests of the people of Belarus. We are prepared to talk to a President who is actually there illegally. If he fails to offer us a gesture, then things will certainly become very difficult. If, as I said, the opposition wants to talk then we will support this, but there will have to be a prospect of fair elections which will put an end to what is currently an extremely odd constitutional situation in Belarus in which there are two parliaments and a President reappointed by “referendum”. There are, of course, limits to our realism and that is why we want to take the opportunity today to register our protest about the situation in Belarus. We also want to make an urgent appeal to its government to do something about those who have disappeared and to ensure that they reappear so that that in itself may lead to really getting a dialogue going which will move towards free and fair elections, hopefully next year.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should just like to observe that the leaks do not help the Commission's cause to be involved in foreign and security policy decisions. I welcome what the Commission has said today. It is remarkable progress and I also welcome Commissioner Verheugen's assurance that the Commission will take action if progress is not forthcoming in those 39 areas. First, the Commissioner sent out warning letters earlier this year to the candidate countries. What was their response and does their response indicate that they will also respond to these proposals he has put before us? Second, in relation to Romania, where there was a slight hesitancy in his language, to what extent does Romania's previous track record, where it promised a lot and delivered little, count against it despite the progress that has been made in the last two or three years? Finally, I should like to ask the Commissioner about the hidden negotiations that nobody talks about anymore, the parallel negotiations to extend the European Economic Area to the accession countries. How exactly are the EEA negotiations progressing?

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. I understand that the Conference of Presidents has decided to remove this report, previously considered by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. This was at the request of the Group of the and the Group of the European People’s Party , who argued dishonestly that the report should be referred back to committee. The committee has had its last meeting and, since I am not standing again, a referral would sound the death knell for this own-initiative report. The report deals with the demand side of such issues as trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation. If Parliament does not discuss the report and place that aspect in context, I do not see the reason for discussing sexual exploitation at all. I therefore call for the report to be returned to the agenda as previously planned pursuant to Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the big news from the Tampere Summit is that apparently there is the political will to produce common European policy. The political role of the Commission and of this Commissioner will be strengthened as a result. Some essential fundamental principles were also reaffirmed such as the right to seek asylum and the fight to combat racism and discrimination. It goes without saying that this is all to the good. But it is still a matter of first seeing then believing. The decisions taken still need to be given substance and some policy options have not made it. The proposed common European asylum system still falls a long way short of the idea of integrated European policy. The notion of spreading the burden between the Member States is still taboo. A European approach to migration as such is not a realistic proposition at this stage. We are talking in terms of a policy of determent at the very most. And it remains to be seen how exactly the Council proposes to improve the rights of people from third countries. The Commission should take the lead in drawing up a further agenda and Parliament must be enabled to play its rightful role where all of these issues are concerned. Cooperation in the fields of criminal and civil law establishes the principle of mutual recognition as the crux of the strategy. That may sound modest but it is probably a sensible choice in view of the disbelief and repugnance that this development still seems to evoke amongst the professional circles that lawyers move in. A great deal of work still remains to be done here to get the message across. In this context, setting up EUROJUST is a bold initiative. Hence it is all the more a pity that the parliamentary control aspect has been swept under the carpet. On a final note: the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Now that a decision has been taken on the composition of the forum that is to compile the Charter, it is high time that we determined what the status of this document is to be. So far, the Council has left this matter up in the air. If this Charter is to have any added value then it must become binding law to which every EU citizen can appeal. To that end, it will have to be incorporated into the Treaties.

Political group: PSE