GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, despite the fact that the International Labour Organisation chose 12 June, i.e. yesterday, as the World Day against Child Labour, the World Cup has again raised the question of the violation of children's rights. Pictures of malnourished third world children forced to work day in day out occasionally make the headlines. In today's world, this sort of situation is unforgivable. However, we have to ask if and to what extent we contribute towards it. According to World Labour Organisation sources, some 211 million children aged between 5 and 14 work instead of attending school. In Asia, Africa and South America, western multinationals use small children for various types of hard work, such as picking tobacco, bananas and cotton, making rugs or stitching footballs and sports clothing in intolerable conditions, often working for more than twelve hours at a time. Despite all the action taken by international organisations to combat child labour, the results are most discouraging, which is why, Mr President, we have to use all our power and influence to put an end to this shameful practice. We need to find a way to stop companies from moving their operations to countries where cheap labour means child labour. I propose that the relevant parliamentary committees draft an own initiative report on this issue and that more funds be made available to the international programmes of the ILO to combat child labour. Children, Mr President, are the most important members of society and they need special protection because the future belongs to them. I only hope that today's debate and the resolution which follow it will be effective this time.

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. – Mr President, I too should like to congratulate Mrs Karamanou on this report. As draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, I should also like say a word of thanks for the cross-party cooperation I had in that committee on this most important issue. We must tackle the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography across the EU. Whatever anyone thinks of subsidiarity, for something as important as this we have to make sure we have common rules, particularly because of the Internet and the free movement of people across the EU countries. I know that there are several child pornographers who have set up business in one EU country because if they are caught they know they will get a lesser sentence in that country. We must make sure that we stamp that out. I am very pleased that much of the opinion I drafted has been accepted by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, particularly the section on penalties and ensuring that we have the same penalties across the EU. I thought the Commission was wrong to bring in tougher penalties for the exploitation of children under 10. I worked very hard in my committee to make sure we also set tougher penalties for those who commit offences against children under 16. I also wanted to bring in children with learning difficulties. I talked a lot with some of the organisations working in this field and they said that disabled children are twice as likely to be abused as any other children. It is important that we protect children with learning disabilities, whose mental age is often much lower than their physical age. The question of definitions is, of course, going to be difficult and we have to work on that. We had great difficulty in the Committee on Culture, as we have had across the board. But we must make sure that photographs of naked children are caught in that net. We see what happened with the Wonderland Club, where individuals had to provide 10,000 photographs of naked children in order to get into that Wonderland Club. I want to say very briefly that we have to clamp down on sex tourism and make sure that nationals from Member States can be prosecuted if they commit a crime in third countries.

Political group: ELDR
This proposal for a decision is intended to provide a response to the administration chapter of the action plan eEurope 2005, specifically through the ‘Interchange of Data between Administrations Programme (IDA) to help to create pan-European administration services in order to support cross-border activities’. The IDA programmes seek to promote cooperation between national public administrations and between these and the Commission, ‘helping’ to implement legislation, Community programmes, monitoring procedures, ‘and the open coordination method’. Surrounding what appears to be a technical programme and its instruments, however, are doubts concerning the attempt to open the way to federalism, to promote European integration and to create the idea of ‘a European public administration’ in addition to the underlying objectives. Nevertheless, the communication totally fails to address the issue of ‘eGovernment’. Since the Internet can guarantee easy contact with administrations and provide services direct to the citizens, we must always ensure universal access and improve the quality of services. The Internet must clearly not be seen as a substitute for front desk services and nor can we accept its being used to centralise services, which would have direct consequences on service provision and on territorial cohesion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Mr Pohjamo’s resolution included some amendments tabled by the Group of the and some tabled by Mr Fava and myself. I would like to draw your attention to two amendments which I feel to be important: the amendment on the principle of additionality and the amendment clarifying the concept of cross-border region. Additionality is essential so that Structural Funds appropriations supplement national funds rather than replacing them. I would add that Parliament cannot and must not be a spectator in the management of structural expenditure. In this respect, I would put forward two guidelines: firstly, the reform and modernisation of the public administration; and secondly, the establishment of development banks consistent with PEP and SPD parameters. I will end by calling upon Commissioner Barnier to take note of the fact that there needs to be some flexibility in the application of automatic decommitment in that the process must recognise those who are working successfully in the same Member State. It is right that the idle should not be allowed to get away with it, but it is also right that those who benefit should be the best, the most far-sighted and the most modern.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I recommend my fellow MEPs to vote against Amendments Nos 1 and 3, to vote in favour of Amendment No 2 and, of course, to vote in favour in the final vote. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0009/2003) by Giacomo Santini, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (COM(2001) 257 – C5-0336/2001 – 2001/0111(COD)) Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Before the vote on Amendment No 100:

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen of the late shift, anyone who wants to do good work in politics must find the willpower and the patience to persevere. Mr Wieland possesses both qualities in good measure. With him as rapporteur, it was therefore almost a pleasure for myself and my colleagues to work towards the outcome that is now before us. We can be slightly proud of that. We have managed for the first time to get something that is normally only talked about enshrined in European law. I mean the necessity for lifelong learning. In the field of medicine, we shall in future not only have rules and criteria for the recognition of diplomas, examination certificates and other attestations of competence. We are now saying for the first time that passing the final professional examination is not enough, but that training must continue, in the interests of patients in particular, but also in the interests of doctors and nursing staff. Given the very rapid pace of technological and scientific progress in medicine, lifelong learning in one’s chosen profession is particularly important. But we must not be content that it now appears in this recognition directive. Rather, our legislation should be a contribution to making this initial success and with it lifelong learning into one of the mainstays of working life for everyone in Europe. I should like to mention another point that has always concerned me in connection with the recognition of professional qualifications. I will dress it up in a question that has still not been answered by this directive: why are we so reluctant to recognise qualifications obtained outside the European Union? This question troubles me when I see how markets are becoming globalised and how easily we allow capital to move around. Our citizens are able to bring goods and money with them from every corner of the world, but very personal assets in the form of professional knowledge and skills are not freely transferable. There is something wrong there. We must put it right quickly. I therefore ask the Commission to abandon two arguments when preparing future recognition directives. First, that it affects only a small number of EU citizens. Second, that the Treaty provides only a limited basis in law. Things will go a lot better then, you will see.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate tonight. It is probably the most important Parliamentary debate in a twelve-month period, when we debate the budget. It is rather ridiculous that we have to fight to put forward the points of view of the regions we represent. Those who are in charge of the future of this Parliament would do well to recognise it is a one-day debate they require, not a two-day debate on the budget in future. I say without apology that I am going to address the effects that the European Union has had in my region. I want to make it very clear that the European Union, insofar as Northern Ireland is concerned, has had the most direct and positive influence imaginable. It has been good for Northern Ireland. It has been positive for Northern Ireland and has delivered for Northern Ireland. The peace and reconciliation programme which was brought about by three Members of this Parliament in conjunction with the former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, has been very positive for Northern Ireland. The partnership boards have been a success in that area. They have been innovative and have introduced new ideas. They have also brought about a bottom-up philosophy that had never been appreciated before. I also have to make it very clear that we now have a fledgling new regional government in Northern Ireland of which my party leader, David Trimble, is the First Minister. It is trying to build a new future. You have to understand that Northern Ireland, throughout the last 30 years, through the terrorism, has suffered tremendously. We are trying to find new ways forward. We are trying to find ways in which we can work together. We are trying to find ways in which we can put things together to support each other. I would ask that we be given the flexibility to achieve that possibility, to achieve the jobs, to achieve the employment and to be able to put the people of Northern Ireland back to work again, back to work in real politics rather than looking into other reasons as to why they may want to disagree with each other. That is the objective. It is something we all have to look forward to. I want firstly to thank Parliament, secondly to thank the Committee on Budgets for their continued support and understanding for my region. I pay tribute to them for that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we will vote in favour of this report, because it contains a number of good intentions regarding equality between men and women, and it proposes that Parliament should put its own house in order. Not only are there half as many women as men in Parliament, but in the managing bodies of Parliament – the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents, and so on – women are outrageously under-represented. However, I must stress that acting only at that level would only be scratching the surface. There is still a considerable difference between salaries for men and women in companies. Why are the European institutions, which are capable of proposing restrictive directives when it comes to facilitating trade and business, not doing the same to ensure true equality of salaries? Why are they not imposing on all the Member States, including the most backward ones, women's fundamental right to be in charge of their own bodies? That would not be enough to halt the progress of misogyny and violence against women, which is growing in the poverty and ghettos of working-class areas, but it would curb the deterioration of women’s standard of living.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. I do, however, have a few comments to make. We are certainly following the approach called for at Feira, but I have heard some speakers, including a colleague from my group, mention illiteracy. I would like to draw the attention of the House to this specific point: there is a disturbing degree of returning illiteracy affecting a large part of our European population as regards new technologies and new languages. The Commissioner mentioned ‘living’ in the knowledge-based society. Of course, living means interacting, but living also and above all means communicating, for, nowadays, it is those who communicate who count in society. In order to communicate, a person needs both knowledge and the ability to communicate, which means being in possession of the tools of communication – languages. This is the area where we have to make progress. This is what we must concentrate on. One consideration is training and another is teaching. If we want high-quality teaching, we must take steps to establish a common basic curriculum and review all the European education systems. As regards training, then, the individual States must strengthen these national agreements on training, working together with local communities, businesses, firms and all those who invest in the training of the young and not so young. I certainly support lifelong training, but I feel that if specific preparation, specific training in learning skills is not provided at the appropriate age, namely during school years, we will have even less chance of success with adults who are no longer open to learning. There therefore needs to be a whole strategy for strengthening primary and secondary education, and we can introduce lifelong learning measures after that. I would like to end with the comment that our countries spend less than 5% of GDP on teaching and training. It may well be that the Commission needs to take action and prepare the ground for a political and cultural debate at European level, because the knowledge-based Europe, the Europe of culture, the Europe of values, can only become reality if we invest more and differently in training ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, you have, in effect, told us that there is a new piece of legislation, an emergency decree that will allow some formalities to be completed more quickly. Mr de Miguel, I do not want the Council to change its mind, and I also believe that we need to protect children, but, do you not think that our governments could at least be as effective as their American counterparts? You are well aware that in February, after a visit from the Romanian President to the United States, and pursuant to this new decree and this new legislation, nineteen children were given up to American families for adoption. Do you not think that, once this decree is in force and we have removed barriers to adoption, keeping a close eye, of course, on the children involved, but also asking the Romanian Government to ensure equal treatment for European families, the solution lies in properly exerted political pressure? Do you not think that if Mr Aznar were to include this issue in his agenda once again, if he were to pick up the telephone, if he were to establish political contact at a high level, this issue – which affects at least 17 Spanish families that have already been allocated children – the barriers would be removed, as has been the case for the Americans? I think it would, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, and I would ask him to do this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the report for pointing us at the central question which is the method for revision of the treaties in the future. We must realise that it will be virtually impossible – and certainly it will be impracticable – to forge agreement between 25 or 30 states upon essential questions of sovereignty. So, the key reform is Article 48 for treaty change. We must entrench the constituent articles of the treaty and we need a softer, lighter system for changing the treaty in regard to policy chapters. The first reform will calm citizens’ fears of creeping sovereignty transfers and the second should encourage citizens to engage more obviously with the political choices that we face in Brussels and in Strasbourg. The second reform that is essential is to remove the national veto from the clauses of reinforced cooperation; and the third will be to grant citizens the right of direct approach to the European Court.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, as a member of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, to thank you for thinking also of the competitiveness of the European aviation industry in the course of your negotiations. The Sabena disaster just goes to show how thousands of jobs can be hit within the shortest period of time. Finally, the costs that have to be borne by airline companies are also a decisive factor affecting ticket prices. Ticket prices are very important for social, but not exclusively social, reasons. The crucial problem when it comes to noise is congestion. When we fly out of Brussels, we often see five, ten or fifteen aircraft queuing on the runway, waiting for permission to take off. I believe that the fight against congestion in general, but particularly in the field of aviation, must be given priority and that we must make efforts to acquire more efficient systems so that such congestion can be reduced accordingly. However, the basic and further training of personnel is also crucial, and not only in the control tower and on the aircraft. If consideration were to be given to providing special training, specifically from the noise and environmental viewpoints, a very great deal could be achieved in this area. Finally, it is also a question of infrastructure. We are all aware of the problems with Eurocontrol, and enough is known about the difficulties of dividing air space efficiently between civil and military aircraft. I believe the Commission should exercise significantly more pressure so that we might more quickly find successful ways of getting on top of congestion and, at the same time, guaranteeing passengers greater safety and comfort. My final point is that the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development is currently being drawn up. I consider it necessary to press very hard for a solution for the traffic sector in particular. In this area, we need new approaches in the Sixth Framework Programme. We know that congestion will be one of the main themes of the next few years. I believe we need intelligent solutions that will help us guarantee the mobility of the population and, at the same time, get on top of the problems. With a view to being able to offer the population convincing solutions in this area, we should therefore do more to initiate our own research programmes specifically for aviation in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although Nice shed light on the need for a European social policy, there is still much to be done in order to guarantee a bold social policy which will improve the lives of our fellow citizens. The European Union should be a driving force promoting social guarantees. This does not run counter to society’s wishes: I refer to the second World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, which has once again put into perspective many of the social choices which are to be taken into account. It is up to us to respond to the expectations of the European citizens. However, any headway is progress, and I also welcome the comments in the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs concerning the social policy agenda. I also welcome Mrs Hermange’s decision to include a number of fundamental comments in her report. I would like to emphasise three points from the recommendations made by the report. First, I am sorry that the Commission failed to take into consideration Parliament’s requests with regard to the right to strike at European level and the right to take collective action. These two rights seem to me to be essential to the correct working of the social relationship between employees, employers and politicians. These rights represent progress which could be classed as progress in civilisation and Europe should not be behind in this matter, as democracy is regularly at the heart of our concerns in this Assembly. Second, I would like to emphasise the report’s request that efforts to address the social dimension of enlargement be stepped up. This issue must also be at the heart of our concerns. Enlargement must succeed. It will not succeed if it is confined to a restricted vision of convergence criteria. Success would involve taking account of the needs of the people and the potential of each candidate country with a view to increasing everyone’s quality of life and of work. Third, I believe it is extremely important that all Commission decisions on concentrations and mergers take account of the social consequences and regional planning. The issue of the action to be taken and implementation is obviously crucial. Lastly, I agree with most of the comments expressed in Mrs Hermange’s report and my group will, of course, vote for this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Even though the draft resolution adopts a number of interesting positions, particularly regarding equal access to research for women, I must reject the guidelines for framework projects favouring finished research, characterised by big industry alongside small and medium-sized businesses in the high tech sector. I cannot accept a situation whereby research is used as a tool in the “economic warfare” conducted by firms for the control of pharmaceutical or agro-industrial markets, or must take account of developments in security and defence policy. Priorities cannot be limited to biotechnology, genome research, new information and communication technology and nuclear technology, and Parliament instead should take action to ensure that knowledge is part of our shared heritage, quite apart from any criterion of profitability. I am therefore opposed to patenting the living organism. Developing medicinal products that are useful to the health of society must be an imperative. In this age of GMOs and mad cow disease, we can but deplore the failure to mention the subject of democratic scrutiny regarding the goals of research. I also reject a situation whereby establishing a “European Research Area” implies jeopardising the position of state research bodies, as evidenced by the fall in public resources set aside for long-term research or, in France, the “innovation” law which legalises the use of public resources to private ends. For all the above reasons, I voted against. (The sitting was suspended at 1.41p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL