GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, this motion is positive and we will vote for it. However, its credibility will only be ensured if the Member States start by cleaning up their own acts. For example, what credibility does Belgium have in this area when it is expelling large numbers of gypsy asylum-seekers to Slovakia and Bulgaria, despite Parliament’s recommendations and the express request of the European Court of Human Rights? What credibility do the Member States have when they are discriminating in their civil services against the recruitment of third country nationals, thus condemning the immigrants who they do employ to constant uncertainty? What credibility does France have when a draft constitutional act recommending that immigrants from third countries be given the right to vote in local elections, adopted in the National Assembly on 3 May, is now being blocked by the hostility of the Senate and the President and the unwillingness of the government? How can we claim to be protecting from discrimination those to whom we refuse any citizenship? Discrimination will only be effectively combated when governments stop using double talk. However, this text is a step forward on which we must build.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Seattle Conference is not an invitation from the United States to the rest of the world to impose the vision of absolute and unbridled free trade. It is exactly the opposite. The World Trade Organisation is a European idea, one to which the Americans were converted in Marrakech, after having opposed it for a long time. With regard to Seattle, it is the Europeans, not the Americans who are proposing the greater agenda: the Millennium Round is our idea. It is the Europeans, not the Americans, who have gained the most from previous negotiations. Since 1995 the United States’ trade deficit towards us has grown spectacularly: almost USD 30 billion last year. Anyway, the issue is not unregulated trade, but quite the opposite, to ensure that the formidable growth of trade serves everyone’s long-term development and not just the predatory enrichment of the strongest. We want increased levels of trade and the elimination of the many barriers that still remain in some countries for some goods and for most services. We want fair trade for everyone and by that I mean equal conditions for competition. They are not equal in agriculture, or in cultural sectors. There must be rules for competition and a court to ensure that they are respected, and that means by the strongest, too, with regard to the weakest. Finally, we want trade that benefits sustainable development, by creating a link between trade agreements and our other major international commitments on fundamental labour rights, on food safety and on environmental protection. Basically, we have to undertake, on a worldwide scale, the course of action that enabled us to succeed in Europe when we moved from the Customs Union to the Single Area, and that is why Europe has the most to bring to the negotiations and has the right to expect the most from it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the despicable and illegal trade in human organs is one that we must endeavour to address. In his report Mr Evans does this and adds useful points that complement those made by the Council in the initial proposal. I have however, along with my colleague Mr Liese, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, tabled supplementary amendments aimed at clarifying the text. The most important of these concerns penalties. We felt it was necessary to send out the right signals both to traffickers and donors. It is for this reason that we have suggested the reinstatement of Article 2(2)(d). This paragraph states that it is a punishable offence to receive or demand money for organ removal. My committee deleted this proposal, but I feel that it should be included in the text so as to discourage unregulated organ donation whenever possible. In order to avoid penalising those who have already suffered enough through exploitive organ donation, we have suggested the insertion of a provision under which penalties may be reduced in certain circumstances. Organised criminals should not take advantage of either naive or opportunistic people in order to create a market of unsafe and unregulated organs. It is far preferable to encourage legal and legitimate organ donation. It is for this reason that I wish to underline the importance of voluntary organ donation. The underlying cause of organ trafficking is a lack of available organs. In the UK alone, 5700 people tonight are waiting for a transplant but less than 3000 transplants are carried out each year. Last year nearly 400 people died in the UK waiting for a transplant. An EU-wide crack-down on organ trafficking must go hand-in-hand with information campaigns on organ tissue and cell donation at European and national level. We should encourage European citizens to join national donor schemes and to make their wishes known to their families or their legal representatives. I have carried my donor card for many years. I actively support the NHS organ donor campaign. I encourage others to support similar campaigns in their Member States. This is an area in which we really can cooperate with one another in order to achieve the most important result of all, the result of saving many lives.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the past few years, Mrs Robinson, the High Commissioner, has tried her level best to turn the UN Human Rights Committee into the public conscience, and she deserves all credit for this, in my opinion. However, that does not detract from the fact that an increasing number of questions arise surrounding this annual high mass in Geneva. The human rights organisation summed the situation up as follows: it is the foxes that are having to watch over the chicken’s eggs. It is indeed suspicious that countries such as Kenya, Sudan, Togo and Congo, which do not have particularly good track records when it comes to respecting human rights, should chair this committee and help determine the standards. In addition to the composition of the committee, the procedure – notably the system of majority voting – also raises questions. Governments that are the focus of investigation by NGOs often stick together in order to defend their own common interests, apparently under the motto: if we spare others, we do not run the risk of being condemned ourselves. That is why I support what Commissioner Nielson said a moment ago. Now that the US no longer forms part of this Committee, the European Union should take over the helm more than ever before. Europe must adopt a more assertive and consistent role when defending human rights. It must support more resolutions, also with regard to large countries, such as China and Russia. Some European Member States all too easily swallow their principles if economic interests are at stake. In addition, the Union must insist on the committee’s recommendations actually being followed up. A great deal of money is being spent on early warning, but the experts’ reports on this matter are systematically overlooked. The credibility of the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, and of human rights policy full stop, is at stake today, and I believe that, in this connection, the European Union bears a very heavy responsibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Parliament is in favour of these measures and has also shown that it is in favour of operating in a flexible way so that these measures are implemented effectively. But the European Parliament is against the use of deadlines as an excuse for this measure never being implemented. The manoeuvring of the Council and its secrecy with Parliament, Mr President, are increasing our suspicions in this respect to the point where we almost want to accuse them of having something to hide. Neither do I share the euphoria of those who think that, by means of labels, we are going to do away with food fraud, nor do I share the fears of those who think that this is a form of renationalisation. It is simply a measure which will offer the consumer more information, and that is significant, Mr President, at a time when, in the European Union, confidence in food safety has been eroded. Therefore, we believe that the Council has made a big mistake and must put it right as soon as possible.

Political group: PSE
I shall vote in favour of the report because it has the merit of once more highlighting a recurrent problem regarding the involvement of women in political life. The report, quite rightly, points out that education is an essential tool in combating stereotypes and in equal training for children of both sexes from the earliest age. However, two aspects which I think essential are missing. The first is the economic situation: as long as women are the primary victims of an economic system which forces them into part-time work, secondary income and insecure jobs, to expect them to get involved in political life will remain a pious hope. The second is the political situation: the report could at least put forward rules for elected representatives which require new people to be elected in each legislative term thereby enabling a turnover in members which would favour the election of more women. Similarly, there should be a ban on holding more than one office, and there could be a time limit on re-election periods. - Seppänen Report (A5-0384/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – Mr President, I declare an interest as a director of a television documentary company, in which I am now not very active; but I retain my concern for the quality of our broadcasting and television. I welcome Mrs Hieronymi's report and salute her for it. It goes to the heart of the cultural diversity that we prize in Europe. We defend public service obligations – however the service concerned may be financed – and the principles of universal access, which constantly come back in all of our debates now about technology. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has taken heed of the imbalance in the European audio-visual market place, and I hope the Commissioner will be able speak on this. Since 1999 the revenues of European television companies have grown by an average of 46.3%. In that time, public-service broadcasting hardly grew at all and creative television production in the five major producing countries of the European Union was sluggish or, in some cases, falling. At the same time, US programme sales to Europe – programmes which, as we know, are reaping their tertiary reward, having already cleared their primary and secondary rewards in the US market directly and by satellite and cable – grew massively. That is not a healthy situation. The protection of the diverse market in Europe remains crucial. The imperatives of the technology should be linked to what consumers need, as well as what the production empires want to sell. Article 3a, referred to earlier by the rapporteur, shows what can be done to keep the widest audience for special events. I too support Mrs Junker's amendments and others on the same point. It was a major change for the better and it showed that we can intervene here and in the European Union. We need to return to the issue of media concentration and how that relates to the public good, not just in terms of diversity but also in terms of raw political power. Finally, we ought to be able to say to the applicant countries: do as we do and not merely as we say. That means having rules that are observed, for them as well as for us.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would point out though that we still have not received an answer to one question, namely whether the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is prepared to withdraw its amendments. I would be very interested in this, because it is by far our most serious problem. You see, if we accept one single amendment – you know this, fellow delegates know it, I have said it more than once – then we will, as it were, already be in breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement, because we will then have gone over the margin for payments. Would you perhaps like to repeat the question to someone from the Committee on Agriculture?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will just take as read my group's support for the Lamfalussy report and for the reasoning in it. I want to come to the nub of the issue here before us. I am not reassured by the assurances of the Council and the Commission that we in Parliament are fully looked after in this process. Of course, we must respect the treaties. Of course, we must understand the difference between primary law and secondary legislation as referred to in Lamfalussy. And of course, we have as a potential point of departure the June 1999 interinstitutional agreement on comitology. We stand at a special moment where we can seize an opportunity as institutions together to creatively pursue something that we have failed miserably to do so far. There is a long list of blockages noted by Lamfalussy and they are primarily the blockages of the Council of Ministers. There is a long list of failures to implement and they are primarily a responsibility for the Commission as guardian of the Treaty to enforce. There is no point in going back to the past when we can seize this moment to create a much better future without delay in terms of a single financial market. Yes, we have rights in the primary legislation. We have the right, as has been said, to define the scope of the legislation and of the derogated powers to the regulators and securities committees. But there is a feedback system in this. Will we give them a millimetre or a metre? A metre or a kilometre? I will tell you – we will dole it out in accordance with our view of its democratic scrutiny, its balance, its parallelism between the legislative institutions and its accountability. If you want speed and substance, if you want, Commissioner and Council, the flexibility to give tomorrow's solutions to tomorrow's problems, and not to yesterday's problems, then we need to give these committees a wide latitude but be able to call back, if necessary, on reflection. No callback – no wide latitude. We have a big choice to make. What are we pursuing here? It is not simply a closed loop. In the primary round we get to decide how wide is the secondary discretion and how wide it will be. It will partly depend on how open and democratic is it and how balanced it is in terms of the two legislative arms of this Union. Let me turn to the bit of the debate that has not mentioned its name. Even as the Council sits here and – if I might say even with due deference to all the politeness of the Minister – throws the book at us and says, 'There is a treaty; there is a procedure. We will inform you, we will send you the minutes, but otherwise please go away,' I do not accept that message. I want to know from the Council as you give us that message why do you or at least some Member States go through the back door and use annexes, attached for other reasons on sensitive issues, to the June 1999 decision and make up new comitology rules for yourselves to jump from qualified majority de facto to simply majority as leverage on the European Commission. This is not acceptable. There should be not two rules but one rule, one democracy, one openness. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Summer time has, in practice, become normal time. There may therefore be cause for questioning the concept of ‘summer time’ when it relates to seven out of twelve months, that is to say the majority of the year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the various groups here have been adopting positions regarding the matter of Mr Berlusconi’s parliamentary immunity, and I would like to state, on behalf of my own group, that I have been studying some documents relating to earlier cases, which were in the possession of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and which relate to the immunity of the Spanish and other Members. I think it is very important that Parliament should comply with the rules on the waiver of parliamentary immunity in a way that is completely fair and consistent. Having familiarised myself with these precedents, I could not help but come to the conclusion that there were two suitable precedents for concluding that the request to waive Mr Berlusconi’s parliamentary immunity should have been made in plenary immediately after last summer’s recess, and referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs for deliberation. I had the impression that the last argument you put forward, Madam President, was that the requests in question had come from the Spanish Supreme Court through Parliament’s Information Office. My opinion is that this is not a very plausible reason for postponing the issue and delaying discussions on it. Consequently, I can only state that it is the opinion of my group that there was every justification for announcing this request to waive parliamentary immunity in plenary without delay, and referring it to the Committee on Legal Affairs for deliberation. The committee could then have discovered if there were any problems associated with this competent authority. I believe the committee would have been very happy to do that. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament must give a boost to the implementation of the principle of equal rights and opportunities and I congratulate Mrs Gröner on the proposals she has tabled and which, if implemented, will make a major contribution to gender mainstreaming, by promoting equality between men and women through incorporating this into all practices and activities. I also wish to emphasise that this is not only a matter of increasing women’s participation in Parliament’s bodies, the various committees and working groups; it is above all a matter of integrating the gender perspective into every stage of drawing up policies in the various working processes of Parliament's committees and delegations, including the budgetary process and in all Community policies, which is extremely important. Appropriate financial and human resources are of course essential, but what is needed above all is a genuine policy of promoting equality and considerable political will, not only on the part of the bodies responsible in this Parliament but also on the part of the Commission and the Council, to ensure that the gender perspective is genuinely present in all policies and practices.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteur for her thorough work, and I particularly want to thank our Group’s shadow rapporteur for her balanced views. This is an important directive we have been waiting for, as recycling must be introduced effectively precisely where it will genuinely benefit the environment, and the volume of waste generated must be dramatically reduced. Recycling for the sake of recycling itself is something we have no need of; it must mean a genuine saving. By virtue of its legislative nature the directive should still allow for flexibility on the part of Member States in its implementation. The criterion must therefore be genuine conservation of the environment. Population density and distance will be the deciding factors in assessing whether recycling is sensible. Overall recovery and recycling targets should be considered to be along the same lines, that is, along the lines of the Commission proposal. This would prevent the use of recyclable materials merely as sources of energy. I am of the same view as Mrs Corbey that material-specific recycling targets should not be put forward. Apart from the fact that they would be awkward to set, it might mean that one sector is favoured and it might therefore distort competition. I tabled amendments both for the Committee and plenary session. They concern really quite small details, but are the sort of thing this directive seems to need for it not to become too cumbersome. One fairly prosaic example is the toilet paper tube. Perhaps many of us would not be eager to class it as packaging waste that would then have to be recycled and used, for example, in our neighbour’s toilet roll. It is to be hoped the directive will have an impact in two directions: it will be of major importance in rationalising practice, but, hopefully, also in preventing the generation of waste. The volume of waste should be de-coupled from economic growth, as my colleague Mrs Myller quite rightly stated here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to comment on the positions taken by the honourable Members in connection with the arrest of a number of Britons in Greece and, first, to assure them that, as Members of Parliament, we have no way of influencing the independence of the Greek judiciary, and rightly so, nor do I believe that you are able to influence the judiciary in your countries. Secondly, you must know, as we said during the last debate in Brussels, that the acts for which they were arrested, at least as they have been reported in the press, are acts for which they would have been arrested in any one of the fifteen Member States of the European Union. So we would be well advised to respect the institutions on the basis of which the fifteen Member States work together, to respect the independence of the judiciary and to respect the laws which apply in the fifteen Member States. Let us be clear on one thing: there are fifteen countries here, represented by numerous parties and numerous persuasions, all are equal and of equal value, and no one has the right to tell other countries how to act, as if they were countries which did not belong to Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to stress the importance of the renewed attention being paid in this parliamentary term to the 75 million people aged between 15 and 25, who from 1 May, will be part of the enlarged Europe. If we extend the parameters to include those aged 30, this figure will clearly be even higher. Indeed, in Italy and in other countries of the European Union this is the only age group that actually enters the labour market on a permanent basis. One basic view is that young adults are no different to adults, but they are adults in a different way. They therefore have rights and duties, some of which are different to those pertaining to other citizens and some are similar. On the basis of exhaustive and extensive research, the Gröner report proposes a commitment that is also a challenge: to increase the participation and information of young people in politics. The information that we must manage and provide for them must be clear and specific. Achieving the participation that we are hoping for will not be easy, but learning to participate and learning to provide information is the best approach to developing the awareness of active citizenship that not all adults are putting into practice. If we agree that those who do not have a past do not have a future, then the only choice we have is to pass on the founding values of our past to young people, who are our future. In this way, these updated and revised values will be the seeds for tomorrow’s growth. We are totally in favour of the European Youth Week because it also symbolises the priority commitment that is being given to a new drive for European youth that can count on several assets, such as intercultural learning, environmental protection, sport and art, to give just a few examples. We are redoubling our efforts as adults on social exclusion and xenophobia because it is not words but practical deeds and actions that have the greatest educational impact. Thus, working on young people and for young people also becomes a way to work on ourselves and we should thank young people for this opportunity.

Political group: ELDR