GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, it has already been said that our group will approve the Council proposal. Mexico is an important country. It is the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. Accordingly, this agreement is of great political importance. But I would like to stress that it is also of great importance to us to approve this agreement, because it is evidence of the common foreign policy of the European Union. I address this remark in particular to the Commissioner responsible for foreign policy. In this, I differ from my British colleagues for whom it would be preferable that the Member States concluded individual agreements with Mexico. I regard the fact that the European Union is tackling this issue as a united front as a great step forward. For us, the agreement with Mexico has a high priority. What is more, it is the first in a series of agreements we are currently negotiating with Mercosur and Chile. Implementing the Mexico agreement therefore serves a pilot function. As far as our foreign trade policy is concerned, this will improve our trading situation in Mexico. The share of Europe’s trade with Mexico has fallen back to simply ridiculously low levels. This situation must improve and I believe it is also in the interest of Mexico not to be solely dependent on trade with the USA but to have a well-balanced trade position, with Europe playing a role. This, I believe, is a truism. To this extent, the agreement is in our interest as much as it is in the interest of Mexico. While approving the EU/Mexico agreement, we should nevertheless honour the fact that Mexico is changing. The election of President Fox means that, for the first time since the Mexican revolution, there has been a changeover of power. Mexico now ranks among the states in which democratic changeovers of power will become the norm. There is also hope that the conflict in Chiapas, in the south of the country, will be settled peacefully. Mexico has opened itself up to the USA, but it is also prepared to open itself up to Europe. I would therefore very much welcome it if, for instance, the newly elected President of Mexico were to pay a visit to Europe in the not too distant future, and perhaps speak to us here in this Chamber, and if European heads of state were to visit Mexico. A final word on the Lucas report: as is always the case, it is clear that we do not agree on the explanatory statement contained in the report. Here, the rapporteur is free to express his or her opinion. But I would like to say in this connection that cooperation with Mexico, a country with which we entertain friendly relations, is critical. What is more, this works in both directions. We want to have the freedom to say what we do not like in other areas and we also ask our friends to tell us what they do not like. That can best be exemplified by the situation with the USA: we have had some very serious clashes with the USA – and vice versa too, I might add – without that having changed our cooperation partnership and our mutual trust in any way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first of all I would also like to congratulate Mrs Mann on her report. We are all aware of the fact that trade relations are a factor in economic growth, but it is equally true that not all countries have been able to integrate into the world trade system and take advantage of the opportunities it offers to improve their development, which has increased inequality between rich and poor countries. There is therefore a clear need to manage globalisation by means of multilateral standards drawn up from a policy perspective in order to make trade relations at world level a beneficial force for all, which contributes to the objective of eradicating poverty and achieving fair, sustainable development. It is therefore important for the European Union to define a trade strategy that places the specific needs of less developed countries at the heart of trade negotiations, in order to make possible the gradual incorporation of these countries into the multilateral trade system. In fact, the right of access – including non-reciprocal access – of poorer countries to the markets of developed countries is vastly insufficient for guaranteeing genuine development of trade flow if – as you yourself pointed out, Commissioner – we do not simultaneously strengthen their capacity for industrial and agricultural development, respect for the rules in force in the importing countries and familiarity with trade circuits, as well as their administrative capacities and their financial institutions. For precisely this reason, the Committee on Development and Cooperation fully supports the incorporation of the development aspect into the Doha agenda and welcomes the impetus provided to this end by the European Union, and specifically yourself, Commissioner Lamy, in order to promote this development aspect. At the same time, however, it considers that it is vital to ensure coherence between multilateralism and regionalism, between the rules established by the World Trade Organisation on the liberalisation of regional trade and the development of areas of free trade, including the proliferation of agreements between countries and regions with very different levels of development, because it believes that only this way, with this coherence, will we be able to make trade relations a genuine factor in development for all peoples and finally eradicate poverty.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with the second reading of a directive which is important for the application of the principle of equal treatment for men and women, in terms of access to employment, training, professional promotion and working conditions. This directive has led to many hours of work, meetings and agreements between the different groups in order to achieve a text that is acceptable to the majority of the House, as well as the Council and the Commission. It has not been easy, but foremost has been the desire for a legal text which is a good instrument for providing women with equal access to the labour market under equal conditions and for allowing them to reconcile family and professional lives, which still causes women enormous problems, especially young women. Article 1(2), which guarantees that women retain their job after maternity leave, is of the greatest importance. Not because it is an innovation, since it is included in most national legislations, but because, despite this, retaining jobs and continuing professional promotion after maternity are still creating enormous problems for women. These problems principally affect women, but the directive lays down that, when a father has paternity leave, he can have the same guarantees as women, although this leave is after the specific leave for childbirth, which is exclusive to women. Also included are positive measures which promote the presence of the least-represented sex in a specific working sector, in order to allow greater equality between men and women. It is also important to stress that the directive deals with a work problem which unfortunately affects women more than men: sexual harassment, which will not only be prosecuted and punished, but prevention measures will also be adopted in companies. Although we are aware that small companies may have problems complying with this directive, we believe that it is an important achievement for equality between men and women. I hope that in the end it will help women and not create additional problems for them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, having seen a wide variety of serious accidents in tunnels in the European Union’s road network, discussion of how to guarantee a high standard of safety throws up, yet again, the crucial question as to the extent to which the European Union should lay down detailed and specific technical rules, or, to put it another way, how much leeway there has to be for various ways of adapting to change. Mr Rack’s compromise is the right one, and for finding it he deserves our gratitude. I do, nevertheless, have five comments to make. Firstly, and quite apart from all the flexibility involved in allocating tunnels to safety categories, it would have been desirable to lay down standardised indicators for assessing the safety of tunnels, which it might then have been sensible to use to analyse all the tunnels in the European Union, rather than only those forming part of the trans-European networks; this would have brought with it even greater added value in terms of improving safety. Such indicators would also make it possible to carry out a risk analysis or an evaluation of dangerous situations and accidents on the basis of common benchmarks. I therefore find it regrettable that the text no longer contains the Commission’s proposal on the standardised application of harmonised norms to working methods in conformity assessment bodies. Secondly, there is the closely-connected question of whether it is right that the tunnel management should, as an organisation with its own functions, also be able to be the body that investigates accidents. I do not think it should, as one cannot exclude the possibility of conflicts of interest, which would be detrimental to the maintenance of safety. Thirdly, I fully support the new ruling that, where tunnels impinge upon the territory of two Member States, joint investigating bodies are to be set up to exercise the necessary functions. Fourthly, it appears to me that, quite apart from the measures for which this report provides to impose minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels, there is a whole range of other actions that could help improve safety, and do so more simply and probably at less cost. In this I include what Mr Swoboda has already said about additional rules for tunnel users’ speed, the distance between their vehicles, the giving of particular signals, markings, and so on. My fifth point is that all the technical measures that have been proposed can have little effect when a driver is over-tired. Modern technology notwithstanding, what is ultimately crucial in road transport, as in so many other areas of society, is the human factor. I would therefore like to call upon the Council – even though it is not represented here – to deliver a final position on the Regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President of the Commission Prodi was quite right when he spoke before this House of an error of historical proportions if the Intergovernmental Conference were to be reduced to dealing with the so-called Amsterdam leftovers. No, what the citizens of the European Union rightly expect is true democracy, transparency and efficient decision-making. What is necessary, above all, is the courage to critically examine the policies of the Union so far. The need for a socially just Europe remains highly topical. We need a reform of the Union which finally places the struggle against mass unemployment and poverty at the centre of policy. The reform should also entail having the courage to change Article 4 of the EC Treaty which, in classically neo-liberal manner, defines the Union as an open market economy with free competition. The same applies to Article 105 of the EC Treaty so that the European Central Bank might have the contractually established political task of using its monetary policy to promote growth and employment. Our citizens must be involved in the debate about the content and objectives of the reform. They must have the opportunity, through referenda, to themselves deliver their own judgement on the results of the Intergovernmental Conference. I have noted with interest the proposals of Messrs Dehaene, von Weizsäcker and Simon. A number of these I personally consider to be definitely worth discussing, for example the proposals to simplify the Treaties or the proposal that qualified majority voting in the Council and the involvement of Parliament in decision-making ought to be the rule in future. As a Member of the European Parliament representing a large Member State, I attach the greatest importance, of course, to the fact that the rights of small States should not be restricted. One thing, though, I want finally to say loud and clear here. My Group decisively rejects the integration of the Western European Union into the Union. We want to see a civilian Europe characterised by solidarity. We do not want a military union appearing in future, armed to the teeth, as a Euro policeman on the stage of international politics.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The liberalisation of telecoms is already very far advanced in the countries of the EU. Now a further part of the network infrastructure is under discussion: the connection of market entrants and customers to the data transmission network. This is the next logical step in the deregulation policy hitherto. But, precisely because we are dealing with the local loop, customers' interests need to be taken into particular account. Liberalisation of the local loop is actually, of course, about getting the high-speed Internet of the future off the ground (high transmission speeds and low local telephone charges are decisive for this). This being the case, a 'basic supply' must also be guaranteed in this sector to all members of the public by extending the companies' Universal Service Obligations. For example, included in the Universal Service Obligation could be 'normal Internet connection' by 2002 and a high-speed Internet connection by 2005, with minimum requirements for quality of service, consumer protection and content on offer and special tariffs for particular groups of society (the disabled, those receiving benefit or on a low income, those who live in outlying regions, and so on). Since this is not guaranteed in this report, I voted against it. - Jové Peres Report (A5-0273/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, what happened on 11 September does not reduce the need for development aid. On the contrary. There is reason for calling upon all the EU countries to live up to their pledges in Gothenburg to increase their aid to the promised 0.7%. The EU is most certainly the world’s largest donor region, but that does not say as much about our own efforts as about the deficiencies of others. Even if we are not at present supposed to be criticising the United States but instead continuing to support them, it has to be said that the United States’ role in this context has not been particularly distinguished, to put it mildly. There is both their deficient contribution to the UN and the insufficient development aid they have provided. The issue of their contribution to the UN has now been sorted out, so we can hope that the issue of development aid will also be sorted out. Prevention is, of course, better than cure, and development aid is an effort at prevention. It is sad that it is so easy to get expenditure on military systems authorised and that it is so difficult to get expenditure on the preventative work of development aid authorised. We must be clear that, in our contemporary world with its TV channels, the very poorest people also know that there are very large inequalities in the world. In reality, it is amazing that they do not react more strongly than they in fact do. There is no doubt that the refugee ship we heard about this summer is only the first small portent of what is to come. Following this introduction, I wish to turn to the rapporteur’s report and thank him for all the work he has put into this matter. Crisis conditions, to put it mildly, prevail in a long list of developing countries. A huge effort is therefore necessary when it comes to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Anyone who has been in any doubt as to whether this can simply be left to private companies can no longer, after the debate that has been conducted in recent years, be in any doubt that an effort is required, partly from the donor countries. We cannot leave this to the free market. It has actually been rather humiliating to discuss this matter, but that is why it is all the more gratifying that the EU has now done something in this area and, for example, totally untied the funds, which means that developing countries can buy wherever it is best and cheapest to do so. We must not only concentrate on medicine. We must, of course, also concentrate on restructuring. It is incredibly important that we should ensure that people are helped to help themselves and that we should see to it that systems are devised for which developing countries themselves can take responsibility and which they can, above all, manage, including when we are not there to support them. Both medicines and infrastructure are required in this matter, and I would urge us to continue to make a major effort to help developing countries to help themselves.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am delighted this resolution has been adopted by Parliament in recognition of the problem that exists with additionality. I represent Wales which, due to the practices of the UK Government, has not received, and will not receive, what the EU intends to be spent on combating poverty over and above normal government spending, even with Objective I status in the current programme period. As Commissioner Barnier has stated, it is as important to comply with the spirit of additionality as with the letter of the law. The Commissioner also endorsed the statement by Commissioner Liikanen that in future the Commission would be particularly attentive to the spending figures put forward by the Member States when there is evidence of reduced expenditure in a given region or regions. I trust now that the Member States will comply with the wishes of Parliament and the Commission in this matter to ensure that the effective targeting of structural funds at the poorest regions is not undermined.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me to begin by offering my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Atkins, for a powerful presentation, to the Commission for making this issue one of its priorities and to the Commissioner responsible, Mrs De Palacio, for daring to translate words into action. This has meant that the question of a single air traffic control has, in a short time, come closer to a solution perhaps than ever before. Of course, there still remains much to be done. In particular, a number of reluctant Member States need to be convinced, but that is precisely why it is so incredibly important for the European Parliament to give the Commission its full support today for the continuation of the work. We are, of course, in the middle of yet another chaotic summer for flights. The development we are now seeing will result in a doubling of air traffic in the years following 2010. This assumes that we have had the necessary political decisions. Otherwise we not only run the risk of congestion in the air leading in the future to 15, 30 or 60 minutes’ delay, which we can perhaps put up with, but are also in danger of no longer being certain of ensuring safety. This is something we must never put up with. It is in this light that Mr Atkins’ report and the Commission’s presentation must be seen. The EU has spent a considerable amount of time and energy on tearing down borders and creating a single market. Everyone who travels a mile up in the air – and we are there quite often – can nevertheless see that there are borders everywhere. The report lays down an extremely tight timetable. I share this ambition. Let us together ensure that the summer of 2000 is the last summer with chaos in the skies over Europe. The Commission can actually achieve this with the help of the Atkins report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have presented this amendment having heard the Italian Presidency of the Council and the report it has produced on the situation relating to Parliament’s representation in the Intergovernmental Conference. I believe that we cannot strongly welcome something we have not been offered, and therefore my proposal is that the following should be included: ‘Expresses its concern and discontent with the lack of compliance by the Council with the assurances expressed by the Italian Presidency to Parliament’. The rest would stay the same. I would point out that the President-in-Office of the Council has indicated his agreement with this amendment, because it may help him at the Council.

Political group: PSE
There are many very good points in Mrs Swiebel's report and a huge amount of hard work has gone into its preparation. Inevitably, it makes many of us feel uncomfortable when we find our own countries being referred to as not having ratified many of the human rights conventions. On a day in which we celebrate the action of the governor of Illinois on the death penalty, I am glad to see that Mrs Swiebel congratulates the Irish Government on having finally abolished the death penalty. Of course, it has not been used for a great many years and was maintained on our statute books only for the killing of policemen. But I would particularly like to welcome her section on the rights of children. I have been a Member of this Parliament probably longer than most people here at the moment. Until the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was drawn up, the rights of children, the intrinsic rights of children, were not recognised, discussed or seen as part of fundamental human rights. However, the UN optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography is also referred to. We did not consider any of these issues when we started discussing human rights and holding the annual discussion on human rights. For example, the issue of the exploitation of children on the Internet was not even a twinkle in the Commission's eye until relatively recently. It was not an area about which we actually had a great deal of knowledge or information. The section recognising these as important rights for children that have to be protected is to be warmly welcomed. I hope we will see this section enlarged as the years go by and as we discover, unfortunately, just what a dangerous world it is for many of our children. I would like to thank Mrs Swiebel for making this such an important part of the report.

Political group: PPE-DE