GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am not happy with the document on the future of the European Union with regard to the Laeken Council, Madam President, even though I voted for it, because it does not say that the European Union should, in future, have the competence to legislate on European pension systems. All 15 Member States, plus the other 12 that have applied to join the European Union, have pension systems in deficit. The national governments have been unable to administer their funds. What better evidence could there be that only the European Union can solve the problem of those workers who hand their money over to the State and then do not get it back when they reach old age? Perhaps – I hope, I am sure – the European Union will be better at administering the European citizens’ pension funds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Patten, I should like to use the term which President Clinton used to characterise the behaviour of the Senate. He called this irresponsible. This irresponsibility has dealt a severe blow to all international efforts towards non-proliferation and puts nuclear disarmament into a state of severe crisis. It seems that much more important to me at this time for the EU to take the initiative in this area. I welcome the initiative of President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Prime Minister Tony Blair who, in an open letter to the American public, canvassed in favour of ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That was not enough. We know that. Therefore, we must do a lot more. We must think in concrete terms and we must take action. I am a little disappointed, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, that you have only told us what we have read in the newspapers anyway. I congratulate Commissioner Patten on the very concrete steps which he has presented here. Commissioner, I should like to urge you to collate these steps in a kind of action catalogue forming part of a report for the European Parliament. In that way, we can become active, take initiatives or make further proposals to the Council. I should finally again like to support what the European Parliament decided on 18 November of last year when it supported the eight States’ declarations of 9 June 1998 concerning the new agenda coalition for the rapid, definitive and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Demand this, and the European Parliament ought to renew its support. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I would thank the Commissioner for his answer and should like to ask a question: where does Commissioner Kinnock believe that criticism ought to be directed? Should it be directed at the fact that some millions of euros which should have gone in aid have disappeared and that taxpayers’ money has been mismanaged; or should it be directed against those who express their disappointment at the fact that these issues have not been successfully clarified? I think the answer should be simple, and I believe that the people of Europe also think the answer is obvious. My second question concerns the fact that, if the Commission wrote a letter to former Commissioner Gradin, it must have believed that she had in some way attacked an individual. I myself saw the TV programme and I am able to say that she did not do so. She was completely loyal to the decisions taken in the Commission. How could you believe that former Commissioner Gradin had directed criticism against individuals? You must obviously have thought she had done so, because you wrote the letter.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mrs Díez González and I had tabled questions on certain opinions of the Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio, which appeared in a Spanish newspaper. The competent services have not included them in the agenda on the grounds that they had been answered in a previous part-session. I would ask that they reconsider, since this is not the case. The questions answered previously referred to Mrs de Palacio’s intervention, on another occasion, and not to these comments which appeared in the ABC newspaper on 18 November.

Political group: PSE
My colleague, Michael Cashman, has done a first-class job in preparing his report on public access to documents held by the EU institutions. He makes it clear that in principle all documents held by Council, Commission and Parliament must be accessible to EU citizens. He is right to acknowledge that some exceptions to open access will need to exist, for example, to protect public and private interests. However, he is right to limit the grounds for exceptions to the bare minimum. I believe he is also right to say that the institutions need 'space to think' and therefore some informal documents should be excluded from his proposal in order to allow the free exchange of ideas.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, A-3021 – what is that all about? In Volume IV, Section III – I have great understanding for Commissioners who have to deal in billions – we find budget heading A-3021: grants for European study groups and organisations advancing the idea of Europe. What a daft idea! Why? Because, I believe, it is symptomatic of the processes which result in many European citizens assuming that you have to have a friend who has a friend in order to get money out of Brussels. One of the previous speakers said that people think that the streets of Brussels are paved with cash. People who genuinely try it know that this is not the case, but that, if you do know the friend of a friend, you are getting close. Budget heading A-3021 bears ample witness to this. It lists some organisations but not others. An amendment by us, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which was intended to guarantee transparency by ensuring that the Commission applies the guidelines on assistance and subsidies and safeguards equal treatment of applicants and organisations, has been rejected. That is a tragedy. I wish this situation could be changed, for there can be no democracy without transparency.

Political group: PSE
If extra resources were given to the Court of Auditors it would be money well spent, because it would ensure that EU funding was not going to something that conflicted with environmental concerns. For years the Council has been blocking the strategic development impact assessment of plans and programmes. I would ask you, now that you are President of the Council, will you push forward with this extremely important proposal. Secondly, as there is no mention of Structural Funds in the current draft could you ensure that this would be put back in? I would like to know what you could do about this as President-in-Office of the Council at the moment because it is the Council that has been blocking this for a long time. It is extremely important. If the Court of Auditors were able to assess regularly the potential conflicts between environmental concerns and structural development, it would be very important because the Court of Auditors could do an extremely good job. Their reports are extremely detailed and very important. This is the way to ensure that such conflicts are avoided in the future.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I should like to bring three points to your attention. Firstly, electricity and gas are two different products. By lumping them together in one report, an artificial attempt is made to treat them in the same way, and the specific differences between these products are not sufficiently emphasised. Secondly, it is vital for long-term contracts for gas transport to be safeguarded, given the increase in demand for gas, partly as a result of the planned closure of nuclear plants, and given that important investments, for example in piping, which are indispensable to the EU’s gas supply, are necessary. The gas supply is literally at stake here. Thirdly, the legislation put to the vote is diametrically opposed to the wish by industry to cut down on red-tape. Too many new obligations are being imposed. Second reading might provide an opportunity to change this.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no longer much point in discussing the package of agricultural prices since the 1992 CAP stipulated the gradual transition from a production price support system to a direct aid system, increasingly required to be dissociated from the production volumes. And as Agenda 2000 adopted and extended this approach, the establishment of agricultural prices is henceforth multiannual. While, however, it must still be possible to make annual adjustments, they must nonetheless comply, for the most part, with the commitments made in Berlin covering this period. This leads me, together with my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, to refuse to endorse the Commission’s proposal to reduce the monthly increments for cereals in two phases, by 7.5% each time. The same applies to moisture content in cereals. The Berlin agreement must continue to be our benchmark. This is the principled position that the European Union adopted in Seattle with regard to its trading partners and competitors within the World Trade Organisation. Logically, then, it should also set the standard in our debates on internal CAP matters. In particular, the European Union must fulfil its commitments in order to enable European farmers to have a clear idea of the policy as it affects them, in order to be able to manage their farms as wisely as possible. I therefore think it imperative to lift the veil from this notion of making the agricultural sector pay for Kosovo. In this connection, then, I would urge the Commission to provide us very quickly with its proposed reform of the COM in sugar. IN THE CHAIR: GERHARD SCHMIDVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I have asked to speak because you have already turned your attention to the agenda. I thought that you would make an announcement about the members of the convention working on the Charter of Citizens’ Rights. I had asked for the names of the Members of Parliament appointed by the Conference of Presidents to be officially announced to Parliament. I was assured that the President in the chair this morning would make this announcement and that the names of the Members of the European Parliament who are members and deputy members of the convention would be included in today’s minutes. I am therefore somewhat taken aback to learn that you have not received this list of names so that you could announce them to the House. An official public announcement of the Members of the European Parliament appointed to the convention must be made because the convention will officially start work on Friday. Please ensure that an official announcement is made.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, over the weekend, 11 Palestinians, including 4 children aged six, ten and fifteen years old, were killed by the Israeli army during targeted attacks. According to the Israeli daily newspaper, Haaretz, no less than 30 Palestinians were killed during the month of August. Sixteen other victims, including 9 children, had already been claimed during a raid on Gaza at the end of July. Even the Israeli press condemned the irresponsibility of these crimes while, as the Yediot Aharonot stressed, the number of terrorist attacks fell dramatically. That is why, on behalf of my group, I call upon the Council, the Commission and Parliament to adopt a very clear position on this change of tactic by the Sharon government, which, in my view, will incite hatred and the desire for revenge when there is a vital need for de-escalation, dialogue and peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a surge of violence is destroying the tropical island in the Indian Ocean. Will the armistice hold at long last? When will the government and the Tamil Tigers realise that there are no winners in this civil war, and when will long-term peace be established? Now that there is a new government, we should strike while the iron is hot. It is of the utmost importance for all parties to agree on the basic principle of lasting peace. The President and Prime Minister must at long last sing from the same hymn sheet; otherwise, they will be playing into the hands of the Tigers. In the past, the Tamil Tigers have repeatedly violated armistices. Seven years ago, the last peace negotiations were unexpectedly broken off by attacks by the Tigers. And they continue to recruit soldiers, including children, even to this day. The politicians should remain vigilant, at an international level too. The monitoring by 30 observers seems very meagre indeed. Are they capable of doing a proper job? And what, I ask, can the European Union do to ensure that the weapons are put under lock and key for good and that the violent storm on this paradise-like island at long last subsides?

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over and again, particular concerns are brought to me in my capacity as chairwoman of the European Parliament’s delegation to the countries of the Southern Caucasus, among which Armenia is included. First, let me thank Mr Oostlander for his report, which was a very fair one, and also for the way in which he handles Turkey’s problems with its neighbours, particularly with Armenia. There are two pre-eminent problems, and the first of them is Turkey’s economic boycott of Armenia. The closure of the Turkish-Armenian border has meant that the transport of goods to Armenia is more expensive, and this frustrates the European Union’s economic aid to that country. This also constitutes a grave breach of the Balladur Principles, which apply to all present and future candidates for accession, and according to which EU Member States must not be engaged in border disputes with neighbouring states, but must, on the contrary, maintain good relations with them. The second problem is that what has historically transpired between Turkey and Armenia has still not been worked through, and this hampers mutual understanding and prevents the development of mutual trust. Most recently, and unfortunately, Turkey has ensured that Armenia has had no part in the negotiations on energy transport and on the construction of pipelines from the region around the Caspian Sea, which is rich in natural gas and oil, and that these will not go through Armenia. All these things are justified causes for complaint by the Armenian people. It has not, so far, been possible to resolve these conflicts, which are obstacles not only to Turkey’s goal of joining the European Union, but also to that of the European Union itself, of stabilising the South Caucasus region.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Directive on enforcement that we are discussing today is completely superfluous. After all, there is already a directive in force regarding the harmonisation of copyright, and, besides, there is the Directive on e-commerce, which regulates, among other things, the rights and obligations of service providers. This new Directive threatens to cause disruption on account of the obligation to monitor what users are doing. The present compromise explicitly stipulates that previous directives remain fully in force, therefore, and that is the way it should be: why else do we make legislation here? We do not want a US-style situation in which legislation is made according to the misconceptions of the day. This new Directive on enforcement officially declares people making illegal copies to be thieves, but everyone has known for a long time that pirating of software, CDs and DVDs is a punishable offence. We certainly do not need a new directive to do this, and especially not one that fails to define the scope of intellectual property rights. We in Europe have different criminal justice systems with different penalties, and we cannot harmonise legal systems with a single directive, particularly without a proper debate in this Parliament. I can say that I am pleased that the compromise now restricts the scope of the directive to piracy for commercial purposes, as copying for personal use must continue to be permitted. Nevertheless, I shall be voting against the Directive.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the Swedish Encyclopaedia of Women’s History, the entry under the heading Patriarchy reads as follows: ‘A social system based on hierarchical relations between men, structured so that the decision-making processes are controlled from the top down and so that women as a sex are placed in a subordinate position. The ideological justification is provided by a system of values designed by male thinkers and founded on men’s perception of reality. The material basis of this system consists of a division of labour according to gender which, at all levels of the hierarchies, assigns to women the tasks which are either unpaid or more poorly paid. One of the prerequisites of this is control of women’s sexuality and fertility. This control in turn requires structural violence against women, on the one hand, and that women practise self-repression, on the other.’ I would like to come back briefly to the question of how we practise self-repression. After all, it is not just in this Chamber – it also happens throughout the various sectors of society – that representatives of the Group of the European People’s Party discuss the allocation of quotas and, for some reason I cannot fathom, have a terrible dread of allocating quotas according to gender. It is said that women must be appointed on merit, but I should like to ask the question which, more often than not, employers and leading male politicians apparently fail to ask: What merits are we actually looking for? After all, we know that, to a large extent, women and men are at present unequally represented in society as a whole. We in the Confederal Group of the have no problem whatsoever with backing Mrs Karamanou’s report one hundred per cent – on the contrary. We are waiting for what is called the ‘ketchup effect’. We have now been waiting for 150 years, so we do not want to wait even another two years for something to happen.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We cannot fight racism and xenophobia only by legislating against them. What we really need are measures aimed at effecting a sea change in the underlying causes of the conditions which allow these phenomena to spread. The report we are debating deals with a series of points we fully agree with, aiming principally at guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the citizens of third countries who choose one of the Member States of the European Union as a place of work and residence. It is especially worth highlighting the need to give the citizens of third countries resident in the European Union political rights, by granting them the right to vote in local and European elections. For those reasons, our vote is in favour of the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Langen, ladies and gentlemen, in a changing world in which global competition is growing and, indeed, becoming ever tougher, public services are among the essential cornerstones of the European social model. Citizens, and indeed enterprises, of today, work on the assumption that a broad spectrum of such services will be generally available, with high quality and at affordable prices. By 'services of general interest' is understood activities engaged in for the general good and therefore linked by the authorities with specific social welfare obligations and benefits. Such services make a significant contribution to improving citizens' quality of life and thus play a significant part in maintaining the social, human and geographical cohesion of the European Union. The subsidiarity principle clarifies responsibilities at regional and national level. The meaning of 'social welfare interest' is laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It has therefore been important for me as President of the Austrian Welfare Service to clarify my position with respect to the major social institutions and health organisations, with the Red Cross, Caritas, the Welfare Service, the sports clubs, the fire brigades, the parishes and towns. It was also important for me to observe that the specifically rural areas are involved, that the candidate countries through which the EU is to be enlarged are involved and that the significance of 'non profit organisations' in the service of the public is clearly expressed. Today's report contributes to greater humanity in everyday life.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, can I first of all say I very much welcome this opportunity to follow the debate on this issue, but quite frankly I think it has tried our patience for a long time and most of us would like to see it resolved as soon as possible. We have to ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve and whose fears we are trying to allay. There is no doubt that consumers are tremendously concerned and I think we have to be able to allay that concern so that consumers can feel confident that the food they buy, anywhere in the European Union, will be fully traceable and good for whoever purchases it. For that we need an effective system of traceability and control that will restore confidence. I come from an agricultural background and it seems to me that what you need to control is the whole life span of the animal from the moment it is born to the time it is slaughtered. If you can achieve that then you will go a long way to allaying the consumers' fears. You can put in controls that will be so bureaucratic that they just will not work, so we have to concentrate on what is workable. Categorising beef as steers, bullocks or heifers will not do anything to allay the fears of the consumer. This is taking foolishness to the extreme and I ask you to reflect and take on board the views of the committee and the view of this Parliament on this particular point.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have, in Europe, been talking for over twenty years in terms of what we call the new approach. Now we have another buzzword: the European Union is no longer to regulate every detail of everything, but it is to concentrate primarily on the interoperability of systems. Unfortunately, though, we often do not adhere to this principle, and that is the problem in this instance, but not with the directive itself, of which there has already been much criticism. The Commission has proposed a system for the future, admittedly one whose target date is a long way in the distance. As the Commissioner said, the only thing is that it probably will not work, and that is not what we want. We need workable systems – note the plural – that must be in place, that must work, and must be interoperable. I have nothing against satellite technology, and there is much to be said for it, but not when it is like this. Is the collapse in Germany not enough for us? What we need right now is technological neutrality, and we will carry on needing it for a number of years. Looked at from that angle, we must warmly thank our rapporteur, Mrs Sommer, for, at an early stage – which was the right one – steering the committee’s discussions in the direction that we need, concentrating on the need to guarantee interoperability, above all, too, on making things simpler for the user, and on ensuring that the system can work. That leads me also to warmly thank Mr Turmes, who was right to warn us against losing our grip on reality when dealing with the topic of tolls and toll systems. When he started speaking, it almost sounded as if he were already talking about ecopoints, which are the next item on the agenda, but I can agree with him on that and also on what he has said on this item for discussion: we should not get airborne over this. Let us ensure that there are workable systems for our transport system as a whole, or else we may end up organising some things better, but we will be wrecking many more.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my voting buttons have malfunctioned. I wanted to vote against!

Political group: PPE-DE