GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Hautala, for her willingness to take into account the considerations and the work of all the political groups. The report she is tabling today and upon which we are to vote tomorrow shows that Parliament has focused on the most important points, which will improve the common position, in order to achieve the adoption of the amendments to the directive with all speed. Although the common position recognised Parliament’s position at first reading on a precise definition of direct and indirect discrimination – which we welcome – we feel that it is necessary – and this is an important amendment – to provide precise definitions of harassment, sexual harassment and the procedures for combating it, including preventive measures. We also feel that it is important to keep our amendment reducing the derogations provided for by the Commission and the Council in respect of the implementation of the directive, and that it is necessary to reinforce protection of maternity and paternity rights, including in cases of adoption, providing effective safeguards against discrimination against parents using the rights they are entitled to. There is one point which I am sure will be discussed in conciliation, for the Commission too expressed reservations regarding this point in its amended position, and it is the provision for positive measures laying down specific advantages. We felt that it was important to include them because that consolidates the provisions of the Treaty. Another important point which we feel should still be included is the laying down of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, leaving it to the Member States to identify procedures, an issue which we have also addressed in other debates in this very Chamber and which we endorsed with the vote on the report on information and consultation. Moreover, it is necessary to make clear, as we have done, the concept of protection for victims, the extension of this protection to trade union representatives and the need for the bodies created to apply the principle of equality to be provided with adequate resources so that they can lend appropriate legal and other assistance to the victims of gender discrimination. We must also clarify the provision made for collective action to be brought in the event of breaches of the directive and the requirement for employees to draw up equal opportunities plans. The Socialist Group will vote for all the amendments adopted in committee. Regrettably, however, I have to tell the rapporteur that we do not support the two amendments she tabled together with the Liberals and the GUE, not so much as regards the content as because we feel they do not achieve anything substantial in legislative terms and, on the contrary, inappropriately go against the compromise reached, which I hope will be confirmed tomorrow with a very wide majority in this House to give us more power in conciliation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European People’s Party would like a separate vote on Amendment No 19. As such, we would like to propose a split vote.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, unlike the lady who spoke before me, I am not sure whether membership of the WTO will automatically lead to political change in China, but that is something I shall return to shortly. I think it was a good thing that the People's Republic of China joined the WTO. It was not a straightforward thing for the Chinese to do, as it will mean major processes of internal restructuring for them, but I consider it urgently necessary from the point of view of China's interests that these processes of restructuring should start now. I also believe that it represents a good starting point for an improvement in trading relationships. I wish, though, to appeal to the Commission to keep a careful eye on how China meets the obligations it has entered into by joining the WTO. The behaviour of China, which had made promises, for example to open up the insurance market, has not been very encouraging in recent years. Promises were made, but attempts were made to evade them. In this respect, I hope that China will give real and positive acknowledgement of what the consequences must be – and it would be interesting if the Commissioner were to make a statement on the line the Commission will take on this. As regards political dialogue, my fellow Members have all made reference to the human rights issue. These human rights apply universally; they are not European human rights that we want to enforce on China, but universally recognised human rights that we demand, and they include the rights of minorities, be they religious or cultural. My fellow Members have already had something to say about Tibet. I would like to take up another example, the persecution of the unofficial Catholic Church in China, which has to exist underground because the government does not recognise the Catholic Church which sees itself as linked to the Vatican. That is not acceptable. Turning to Taiwan, I hope that the People's Republic of China will open political dialogue without setting prior conditions. It is only political dialogue of this kind that can lead to reunification, and then only if this is on the basis of human rights and of democracy in a constitutional state. We in Parliament should play our part in promoting contact between the two states. We should likewise maintain contacts with members of the parliaments in the People's Republic of China and in Taiwan. Commissioner, I hope that the Commission will soon set up its office in Taipei, so that the Commission, too, may support dialogue between the two states by means of its missions in Beijing and in Taipei.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by saying how pleased I am that these two global forums have run their course without violence; we have experienced rather different ones. I would like to put forward a few points on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. The first is that there is still large-scale and persistent poverty in the developing countries despite all the developed world's pledges to halve poverty by 2015, and our good progress towards this has come to an end. As I see it, this is another area where there is a major role for the private sector. This is not about the major international concerns always transferring production to the countries where wages are lowest in order to reduce their production costs. This is about their consciously seeking partnerships with local firms and organisations. By investing in local trade and industry, by making sure that they make good social provision for their employees and that men and women receive fair wages, they can contribute a great deal to the fight against poverty. Corporate Social Responsibility is not only a splendid expression but also of fundamental importance. This must of course be exercised on a completely voluntary basis and from the bottom up. So I call on business too to be as socially responsible as possible when making investments. The ideal is that business at a national level should implement this in all its policy areas. A second point that I want to make has to do with the importance of education in combating poverty. Here, too, the private sector can do its bit. By deliberately using their own know-how to support local vocational training, this sector can give the people a better education. In the long term, this will also be of benefit to their own personnel policy. In all this, I do not, of course, want to play down the part played by the developing countries' national governments and by the international community. Human rights must always be nurtured and promoted. These include good working conditions, along with democracy and good management, for which the developing countries' national governments are themselves responsible; they must take action themselves, even though the developed countries can give them support. Through constructive policies in their own countries, in which the environment and freedom of access for everyone to all the basic amenities, such as water and land, have a major part to play, they too can contribute to spreading prosperity on a fair basis. It is to be hoped that the outcome of both forums will be that these points are taken on board, and then we will perhaps have a better chance of reducing poverty, if not by 50% by 2015, then by an amount not too far from that objective.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the EU – Russia Summit is to be held next week and in Chechnya there have just been elections, which, with the best will in the world, cannot be regarded as quite the sort of presidential elections we in the West are accustomed to. On top of everything, Russia is a big superpower, or at least a big country, which is close by to us, and whose affairs we have not really spoken about too much. We have discussed issues much less directly relevant to us in separate debates here. The situation regarding the war in Chechnya has not changed, and it demands a debate. For that reason, I propose a separate debate on it and I, for one, am very much in favour of that. With all due respect to these other proposed debates, they are rather less relevant to us in terms of their subject matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
With regard to Mr Fiori’s report and the resolution resulting from the report, but also very largely from the work of the temporary committee on the problems of human genetics, I was compelled to vote against it because of the significant contradictions included or left in the resolution, but I must say that this vote does not do justice to the work of the committee which has been extremely well chaired by Mr Goebbels. I agree with the feeling which has just been expressed very rightly by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, and I must point out that the broadly negative vote of Parliament, even though it might ease everybody’s consciences, nevertheless leaves intact the considerable problems which have led to the creation of the committee and which have, furthermore, only increased since it was created, as the events of last weekend have shown once again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this really will be the last time that I disturb you, in order to ask you whether my fellow-MEPs would object if we added 'supports the establishment of the International Criminal Court and invites all States to ratify its statute' to the text. I believe that this would be a gain for this House to which there will hopefully be no objection. (The President declared that there was no opposition to voting on the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0368/2001) by Mr Leinen and Mr Méndez de Vigo, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the Laeken European Council and the future of the Union [2001/2180(INI)] - Regarding Amendment Nos 10 and 23

Political group: PSE
Mr President, after decades of war, conflict, refugee columns, occupation, terror, despair and bitterness, we are now finally seeing some light at the end of the Middle East tunnel – a tunnel which has locked the region’s inhabitants into a situation of mistrust and antagonisms. Through the Wye River and Sharm el-Sheikh Agreements, the new political situation in Israel, a decisive PLO leadership and, not least, a deeper insight into the Arab world, a new situation has been created which prepares the ground for a real and sustainable solution in the region’s interests. Seldom have the prior conditions for progress been as good as they are now. It is Israelis and Palestinians who are the main players. They themselves have the key to this solution. Today’s leaders are conscious of their historical responsibility. In this situation, it is very important that both sides refrain from unilateral undertakings which might jeopardise the process. With commitment and disquiet, indefatigable diplomatic energy and enormous financial commitments, the surrounding countries have followed the Middle East drama for more than half a century. As has been evident here, the EU has a growing and important role in the region. I fully support the Presidency’s and Commissioner Patten’s constructive attitude here today. Our new Parliament is today sending out a new and clear signal of vigorous and sustained support for the peace process which must open the way to progress, democracy, respect for human rights and hope for the future for all people in the region without exception. And, not least, it will open the way to peaceful co-existence between Israel and the independent State of Palestine. The Group of the unanimously backs the multi-party resolution which has been set out here.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, cooperation in terms of research is difficult in Europe, far more difficult than it is in the United States and this is why Commissioner Busquin’s communication is so significant. Investment in research and in cooperation must lead to more economic growth and more employment. This effort deserves all our support, and this is why I can give my full backing to the report by Mrs Plooij, to whom, by the way, I would like to convey my sincerest compliments. But I would prefer it if we were a little more precise in our debate. We have to ascertain that not all research leads to more economic growth or more employment. The demand for research is huge where supporting policy choices, risk analyses, environmental effect reports, monitors and comparative research is concerned. It is all part of the preparation or assessment of political decisions in the environmental sector in the area of food or public health. In these particular areas, European cooperation is meaningful. The Joint Research Centres, the JRCs, have many examples of sound cooperation projects. In many research areas, the JRC researchers find themselves in a situation much like a spider in a web. Where research in support of policy is concerned, initiatives from the Commission are therefore vital in order to prevent work from being duplicated, to avoid fragmentation and to ensure that the best measuring methods and the best techniques become the benchmark. But in this type of work, no major spin-offs in the employment sphere can be expected outside the research centres. There is also great demand for applied research, which can be expected to have a far greater impact on employment. But European policy could restrict itself to creating appropriate conditions, and practical obstacles should be cleared away. I would like to finish off by saying a few words on basic research. Research situated between applied and basic research now has a lower profile but remains significant. Many fundamental questions in the fields of natural and life sciences remain unanswered. It is precisely in these spheres that coordination of national research efforts is of major importance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, perhaps I could waste a little time because earlier on we were informed that the Linkohr report would be taken at 10 p.m. Obviously you have been speeding through things at an extraordinary rate and Mr Linkohr must have been under the misapprehension that he was not required until 10 p.m. I have only just got here myself as a shadow rapporteur. Could we perhaps waste a little time?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Heidi Hautala for the time that she has devoted to this directive and for her work, which shows that she has been equal to this task and has merited the trust placed in her by the members of her committee. I also wanted to say how glad we are to be taking part in a codecision procedure on equal treatment and women’s rights, which does not happen so very often. I should like to say that this directive seems to me to mark progress on two extremely important fronts. The first is that its scope has finally been extended. All family-related issues, such as maternity leave, adoption and also adoption leave – and God knows how important these are for us – have been recognised. The presence of the father and the need for the father not to be penalised if he takes leave are recognised. This is what I would call an extension in favour of family life. I am very happy that all of this now comes under this directive. In the same way, all harassment-related matters now enter into the scope of application of this directive. Here harassment is considered to be discrimination. We tend to deal with the issue of violence against women from the point of view of moral standards. Here we deal with it from the point of view of discrimination, so from the point of view of the fight for equality between men and women. I particularly welcome this and I believe that the efforts we made to draw a distinction between the two definitions of harassment were extremely worthwhile. I myself had recourse to this new standpoint last week in France, where although our law dates from 1992 it does not really include a definition. This new definition will therefore be very useful in all of our Member States. That is why I consider this to be so important. In addition, there is also the whole dimension of obligation. If all of these things that we are asking for are to become a reality, we need obligations and not just wishes and desires. This would appear to me to be fundamental and, since I still have a few seconds left, I will take the liberty of sharing with you a discovery I made today. If you cross the footbridge and go upstairs, you will find a door with a sign indicating the room set aside for this Parliament’s cleaning staff: the sign shows a woman holding a brush. I think that we still have a great deal more work to do, because I want there to be equal treatment in domestic services as well as within the large professions that we are trying to represent here.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, the negative developments in Zimbabwe are in inverse proportion to the degree of international attention focussed on this country since the rigged presidential elections in March. One of the most dramatic outcomes, for example, are the growing food shortages which, as Commissioner Nielson has already mentioned in another context, are largely man-made, namely by the Mugabe regime itself. We have received reports that around 50 000 people in Zimbabwe have fled their homes as a result of repression and violence at the hands of Mugabe's troops, and we receive daily reports of farm lootings, while Zimbabwe's leadership is blatantly enriching itself by confiscating private property while it can still get away with it. However, I would also like to draw your attention to another quite scandalous aspect, namely the Council's response to the situation. Yesterday I received a reply to an application for information from the Council. I asked for an update on the targeted sanctions applied against certain persons. I wanted to find out about the situation regarding the refusal to grant them visas. In reply, I was told this was a matter for the Member States. In other words, I could have just asked the others this time. Apart from that, the question which really arises is this: what are the Council's motives concerning these measures in a country which – as Commissioner Patten said at a Committee meeting – is in freefall? How has the Council managed to achieve a situation in which a country which is in freefall has vanished completely from its operational agenda? It was postponed in April, and a more comprehensive decision in May was also postponed because the high level troika had not yet departed. It is now due to leave on Sunday. The really lamentable aspect of this state of affairs are the attempts by France, Belgium and the Presidency itself to water down the troika's terms of reference in advance of the visit. In light of the situation in the country, this is really quite incredible. There is already talk of resuming cooperation, even though no evaluation of the measures we have taken has yet been carried out. I really do ask myself what else has to befall the country to raise the Council's awareness of its responsibilities in this context once more. I hope, at least, that the European Union troika, which will visit the region from Sunday to confer with SADAC countries on possible courses of action in response to the Zimbabwean crisis, will hear first-hand, at least in one of Zimbabwe's neighbours, about the dramatic worsening of the situation in Zimbabwe from diplomats posted in Harare. As the European Parliament, we cannot accept the Council's attempts to play down such an urgent issue in southern Africa in this way, and, above all, that it is not prepared to make these developments in Zimbabwe a test case for the new African development programme, for example. These are the things we should definitely be demanding. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner. Like Mrs Buitenweg, I too am new to the budgetary procedure but, like everyone else, I know that any budget is, by definition, the expression of political will. Having seen the final propositions notified to us at the end of weeks of laborious negotiations between Parliament and the Council, I greatly fear that our political will appears, to say the least, blurred and wavering, especially as far as external action is concerned, which is the main bone of contention. There is a marked gap between the Union’s loud proclamations of its ambition to play a more active role in the settlement of major international problems and the haggling which we are forced to engage in with government representatives when it comes to finding money to fund the new priorities. My group voted at first reading against any reduction in the appropriations allocated to old but still equally important priorities, especially appropriations allocated to cooperation with and the development of southern countries, in order to fund new expenditure. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been an indication of great political imagination. We therefore voted in favour of a reasonable review of the financial perspectives over several years and the proposal made by our general rapporteur, Mr Bourlanges, went in the right direction, calling for a reasonable review of heading 4. My group therefore supported his strategy to make the Council face up to its responsibilities: either we were to obtain the funding which would allow us to honour our political commitments or we would have recourse to Article 272 of the Treaty, which authorises us to determine non-compulsory expenditure ourselves, albeit within strict limits. Having made one concession after another, we are now back at square one and, in the name of the cast iron logic of the budgetary stability pact, we now have the following situation: firstly, estimates and financial requirements for the reconstruction of Kosovo which have mysteriously dropped from EUR 500 million – the figure put forward by the Commission, the World Bank, the Member States and the media – to 420 and then to some 300 million; secondly, a reduction in the appropriations which we voted for East Timor and for the victims of the earthquakes in Turkey; thirdly, cuts in appropriations for cooperation, food aid and aid to Palestine and the countries of the southern Mediterranean, the TACIS programme for eastern Europe and support for human rights and, lastly, cuts totalling some EUR 2 billion in payment appropriations. The result is, without doubt, an improvement on the Council’s initial position but, even so, what would our responsibility be if we were to accept such a compromise? Let me quote just one example: tomorrow we are going to honour Mr Gusmão the head of the resistance of the people of East Timor. Shall we, at the same time, tell him that we agree to reduce reconstruction aid for his country by one third? That is why, Mr President, my group feels that this compromise is unacceptable and we are unable to back it.

Political group: GUE-NGL