GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice falls well short of what the people and the nations of Europe were expecting. First of all, priority should have been given to the content of the European Union and primarily to the question of fulfilling the needs and the rights of all citizens. There should have been a debate about a real charter of social rights and freedoms, rather than about ratifying a cut-price charter of fundamental freedoms. Once the question of content had been raised, the next question to be tackled should have been the question of the equitable funding of European policies, in particular a review of taxation and a demand for democratic management mechanisms that would satisfy those needs. Taxes on capital (Tobin-type taxes) and sanctions on companies that make staff redundant while they are making profits would have been a step in the right direction. We now come to the question of the container. Europe must equip itself with the means to ensure genuine democracy with reference to all the major issues at stake in our society, while respecting the diversity of the peoples of Europe, yet at the same time allowing the emergence of a European citizenship. We must give our workers and our citizens the means of joining in the debate, and influencing issues concerning employment rights and economic choices, placing the governments and the European Central Bank under control. The Treaty of Nice is diametrically opposed to this approach, as are the policies proposed by this report. This is why I have voted against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like first of all to congratulate the rapporteurs. I have been able to observe their efforts closely, as well as their coordination with all the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I congratulate them but I would like to focus on the report by Mr Casaca, which I consider to be positive for the reasons I will explain now. Firstly, because of the Commission’s generally positive attitude in cooperating in the drawing up of this report and in responding to the questions addressed to it. But furthermore, because this approval, or this report, was preceded by an analysis, not only of the conclusions of the Court of Auditors, but also of the questions put in the questionnaire, the answers given by the Commission, and the working documents produced by certain members of this committee. This is a cautious approval, however, which is accompanied by many recommendations which the Commission should not ignore. I am sure it will not and that it will cooperate in this regard. Of these, I will briefly mention the following: firstly, to try to eliminate the reservations in relation to the reliability of accounts. Probably through the solution offered by Mr Mulder – which he has just referred to – through an open and constructive dialogue with the Court of Auditors. But the Commission must also be aware – as I am sure it is – of the profound concern of the Committee on Budgetary Control and of the whole of this House, I am sure, given the deficiencies of the accounting system and the essential need to choose the right accounting model. That is why we have presented an amendment to this House, so that there may be an audit accompanied by a hearing, so that we protagonists who ultimately have to judge these accounts can express our opinions on them. Furthermore, I would also like to point out the caution in relation to the creation of executive agencies, the need to impose limits on the under-use of appropriations, particularly in relation to the Structural Funds, and compliance with the objectives of the Sapard Programme, above all in terms of its positive aspect of creating administrative support structures in the countries which are about to join us.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you, Mr President. First of all, I should like to express my thanks to the rapporteur for the sound work she has done. In the final analysis, the background to what we are discussing here is the fact that public roads claim forty thousand victims annually, including a number of vulnerable road users – as they are referred to – cyclists, pedestrians and also, of course, moped riders and motorbike riders to a certain extent. These are the people around which everything ultimately revolves. The agreement that is being discussed here is in the first instance voluntary. To a certain degree, I can go along with Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and others who would ideally like to see voluntary agreements concluded with industry. However, this has already taken some time. These tests have taken 22 to 24 years, although some adjustments are taking place. I do, in fact, share the view of Mr Van Dam who claims that these adjustments can be made a great deal faster. These days, consumer adjustments can be made very quickly thanks to technological connections between both the requesting parties and, ultimately, the implementing operative activities in industry itself. Phase one is, in itself, a step forward in this procedure where, for example, the application of ABS is concerned. We have some misgivings about daytime running lights, because it is, after all, the weak vulnerable users who end up being portrayed in a bad light. We have tabled a few amendments on this score. Ultimately, it is also about the front of the cars and what goes on around these. I very much welcome phase one's implementation on a voluntary basis. As for phase two, I go along with these four tests where it is clear which ones are the best, but this is, at the end of the day, about a framework directive. This is what we should focus our attention on now. I fully agree with the rapporteur on the scope and intention of this framework directive. I also agree with her – this is also why we have tabled an amendment on this – to implement this framework directive, which should not be formulated in a technically complex manner, as soon as possible. This is why we state in our amendment that we would ideally like to see this before the end of this year. In the light of 24 years of history, this is certainly not asking too much. Once again, I should like to ask a number of groups – for a number of those are agreed – to consider Amendment No 9, particularly part one, which is about submitting this relatively simple framework directive to us before the end of the year, and this according to the criteria that have been laid down in the low-key consultation between all of us.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on a point of order, I am very concerned indeed about the reports that have appeared in the press, both in France and elsewhere, in the last few days about the opening of an investigation in France by the public prosecutor's office in relation to Echelon as well as, apparently, a parallel investigation into Echelon by the French secret service, the DST. The European Parliament is an important body. I am therefore very concerned that these two different inquiries, which may proceed as a result of any votes taken here today, will cause confusion, difficulty and may indeed prejudice the position of the European Parliament. We shall certainly support the Conference of Presidents' proposal, but in view of my earlier remarks we should now reconsider this position, or at least be given some assurances about the French authorities' actions on this matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the proposals by the Committee on Women’s Rights for the Intergovernmental Conference aim to enhance democracy and effectiveness. It is a fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam was a major step forward for women’s rights, since it provides a firm base for an effective policy on equality, but unfortunately it does not go further than the professional sector. For that reason we are proposing that the Treaty should include a uniform and cohesive legal base for equality between the sexes, which will include all policy sectors. We declare that balanced participation of women and men in decision-making at every level is a prerequisite for democracy and social justice, and we are therefore asking for the related articles of the Treaties to be amended to take account of that principle in the composition of the Commission, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. We also stress the need for a close link between the Intergovernmental Conference and the procedure for drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights, so that within the scope of the constitutionalisation of the Union, the fundamental right of equality between women and men will be enshrined in Community law. So besides the essential equilibrium and cohesion that must be secured between the Union’s large and small countries and between the more and less developed areas and population groups, it is also necessary to take into account the balance between the sexes in planning the future of the EU and in decision making.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to know if it is possible for each group to very briefly explain how it voted on this draft regulation. I am sure you will understand. This is an agreement that has been reached between all the groups. Madam President, I would simply like to say that, of course, it goes without saying that my group is, completely and unequivocally, firmly opposed to terrorism and, therefore, in agreement with the principle of the Commission’s proposal of depriving these terrorist organisations of their funds. However, my group finds the method imposed on us unacceptable, in other words, having to decide urgently on a list that was sent to us by the United States without explanation... (Applause) ... and which could be changed outside our control. This is why we cannot, unfortunately, approve this draft regulation as it is today. (Applause) (Parliament approved the Commission proposal) *** Report (A5-0313/2001) by Mr González Álvarez, on behalf of the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee, on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a European Parliament and Council Directive on general product safety (C5-0298/2001 – 2000/0073(COD)) (Parliament adopted the joint text) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0665/2001), tabled by Mr Dupuis and others, on behalf of the TDI group, on the Extraordinary European Council meeting in Brussels (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the Extraordinary European Council meeting on 21 September 2001 in Brussels (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on the Stability and Growth Pact and the outcome of the informal meeting of the “Economic and Financial Affairs” Council held in Liège on 22 and 23 September 2001 (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0286/2001) by Mrs Hieronymi, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, on the third report of the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 89/552/EEC 'Television without frontiers' (COM(2001)9 – C5-0190/2001 – 2001/2086(COS)) – Before the start of the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I was one of those who had called for a committee of inquiry. For the sake of efficiency, I then endorsed the idea of a temporary committee. Today, I have no regrets! Our committee (of which I was a member) did sterling work and Mr Gerhard Schmid, its rapporteur, proved highly capable. A few months ago, most of the political leaders quite simply denied the existence of Echelon. Now, in early September 2001, everyone (or nearly everyone) recognises that this American illegal espionage network covers much of the world and is ‘watching’ the commercial markets and the citizens’ private lives! True, this system is ‘performing’ less well than might have been feared, but it exists and that is intolerable! The rapporteur proposes measures. Several groups find them inadequate. I can understand the views of some of them, because they are true democrats. But I will not be told what to do by people, especially from the extreme right, who ‘could not care two hoots’ about the freedoms of the individual. For me, what is important, indeed fundamental, is to bring this matter into the public arena. Nothing will ever really be the same again, whether in regard to the WTO negotiations, the development of new technologies or research (see my amendments to the Sixth Research Framework Programme)! Nobody will be able to pretend they did not know! Thanks to the excellent Schmid report, which I endorse, our fight in this area is only just beginning.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Brie for a very well written and important description of the position in Afghanistan and of what we should do to improve it. I have four points I wish to make to Parliament and to Commissioner Patten. The first concerns drugs. While the international community works to prevent drug abuse, Afghanistan’s illegal opium production discourages individual governments in the surrounding area from contributing financially to the reconstruction of the country. According to an investigation by the UN body for drugs control and crime prevention, Afghanistan was responsible in 2003 for three quarters or 75% of the world’s total production of illegal opium. That is, to say the least, deeply worrying. The second point concerns the position of women. The antidemocratic and Islamicist Taliban regime was guilty during its time in power of the most deliberate violation of women’s rights in modern times. The regime introduced a gender apartheid that totally denied women’s identity. The Taliban regime is now gone but, in very many respects, its view of women still prevails in Afghanistan. The country’s authorities, the international community and the EU must therefore make every possible effort to change this view. The third point concerns freedom of religion. Afghanistan’s first constitution following the fall of the Taliban dictatorship is cause for concern, given certain wordings about the dominant role of Islamic law, about restrictions upon certain human rights and individual freedoms and about restrictions upon women’s rights. The last point concerns the education system. We in the European Parliament want to see an open education system as an alternative to the madrasas or the Koran schools that operate as strongholds of Muslim extremism and of a culture of hatred in which Taliban militants are recruited.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, equality is a prerequisite for economic growth. Twenty-five million fewer women than men participate in the European labour market. That is a huge unexploited resource which needs to be made use of if Lisbon’s employment objectives are to be achieved and if economic growth is to be guaranteed. At the same time, the birth rate is falling dramatically. Demographic experts predict that Europe’s labour force will consist of considerably fewer people in the future, when more women will therefore have to be in gainful employment and, at the same time, give birth to more children. How are we to balance the equation? A basic prerequisite is an equality perspective in all four pillars of the employment policy guidelines, and I am therefore very pleased that Mrs Weiler has been so attentive to the proposals tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. The most important thing is perhaps to ensure that European women and men can combine professional life with having a family and children. The Member States must make child care available and offer parental leave. The women of Europe must not be forced to choose between professional life and having a family. The Commission’s focus on better jobs is very encouraging, for better jobs and better working conditions for women are among the prerequisites for having more women in paid employment. Precarious and low-paid jobs which require little in the way of qualifications and in which women are over-represented at present are hardly going to attract women. Quality, which is the recurring theme in the guidelines for the year 2000, must also apply to work done by women. Overcoming gender discrimination at work and in the social insurance systems is a huge challenge. Discrimination against women in the labour market is not only unproductive, it also ruins the opportunities for individual women, for women as a group and for society as a whole. Quite simply, growth and human development require us to put an end to gender discrimination. Equality is an investment.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have mixed feelings to some degree when we look at the history of NEPAD. Even if our fellow-Member’s report is positive – and we can endorse it on the whole – recent experience still leads us to have some doubts. The NEPAD story was the response of the African leaders to the globalisation of the world economy. This is understandable, because Africa is, in many ways, at risk of becoming the continent that is losing out while everyone else uses it to stock up on supplies. It bears witness to vision, but it also has the disadvantage of being a big plan that has not been developed from the bottom up. A major fear is that NEPAD will eventually lead to the enrichment of those who are already rich and the challenge is to see the NEPAD story not as contravening the millennium objectives, such as halving the number of poor who have to survive on less than 1 dollar. This is an issue that cannot be solved with large trade flows, because trade has never guaranteed truly fair distribution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I too feel that, in adopting the Watson report, we will be taking a step forwards in the creation of that area of freedom, security and justice provided for by the Treaty of Amsterdam and merely accelerated by the tragic attacks of 11 September. On the one hand, a common definition of terrorist offences is introduced, which has been greatly improved thanks precisely to the intervention of Parliament and which is necessary for the effectiveness of our undertaking in this field. On the other hand, not least in the area of criminal law, we are starting to implement the principle that Parliament has already upheld by unanimously adopting the Di Lello report on the mutual recognition of judicial measures when it came before Parliament, which is based on the assumption that all the Member States ensure minimum respect for fundamental rights. Here, we do not have the Guantanamo prisons but the supervision of the Strasbourg Court to safeguard human rights, although there is room for improvement in all our systems, of course. Thus, we are also bringing the effectiveness brought by joint action into play in the fight against terrorism, while still respecting the national diversities which make European integration unique. I regret to say that the slow progress of this integration means that the European Parliament is still in the situation where it is merely consulted by the Council. However, we can be confident that, once the Convention’s work and the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference reforming the Treaties are over, this will no longer be the case, and that the Community method, which provides the greatest guarantee of democratic decision-making across the board, will be fully adopted in the Third Pillar too.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is essential that fishing effort – and I mean effort as opposed to capacity – is matched to fishery resources. Member States must also be obliged to fulfil their fleet reduction targets so I welcome the general thrust of Mr Busk's report. Unfortunately, an amendment in committee added a reference to the Cunha report and brought with it the concept of quota penalties, a proposal which is against the acquis communautaire. As the Commission itself stated in this House on a previous occasion, and I quote: 'The automatic reduction in quotas for non-complying countries seriously undermines the basic principle of the common fisheries policy which is that of relative stability'. Quota penalties are impractical as well as unjust, punishing fishermen for their Member State's wrongdoing. Quotas should be based on science and conservation objectives, not misused as automatic penalties. I ask therefore for a separate and split vote on paragraph 4 of this text and I urge Members to reject the references to the Cunha report and make sure that effective sanctions are targeted against those who are obliged to fulfil MAGP targets, that is, Member State governments, and not fishermen.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it was in 1998 that the Committee on Petitions received two petitions with a total of over 1 000 signatures, which, as Mrs Stihler has said, were those of women concerned about this issue or who had themselves suffered, and who asked Europe to consider the problems presented by breast implants, especially those made of silicon. The Committee on Petitions, with its ear open to the public, reacted at that time by asking STOA to carry out an independent and intensive study of implants. Following this, it organised a hearing that attracted wide media coverage, and, as rapporteur, I was entrusted with the task of drafting a resolution, which Parliament adopted unanimously on 13 June 2001. It will therefore be evident that our vote today on a communication dealing with Community and national provisions on breast implants is a matter of twofold satisfaction to me; firstly, because it gives recognition to the action taken by the Committee on Petitions, which was the true initiator of this communication, and then because Mrs Stihler's excellent work takes up and gives added weight to almost all the proposals made in the June 2001 resolution, especially as regards advertising, the information required to be given to patients, the guarantee of the implants' high quality, research, the responsibilities placed not only on manufacturers, but also on surgeons and clinics, as well as the invitation extended to the Member States to maintain national registers and to make provision for a consent form. My only regret is that the idea of issuing a passport to the patients was not retained in the initial report, and it is for that reason that I will be supporting Amendment No 3 to paragraph 10 (ii), resubmitted on behalf of the Group of the , which aims to reintroduce such a passport. Although some may object that this is just one more piece of paper, I consider it an effective way to replenish the future European database. Moreover, such a system would, above all, allow the patient to have real knowledge of the implant's specific characteristics. Let me conclude by saying that I rejoice to be able to vote on this resolution, which itself demonstrates how well the Commission and our Parliamentary committees can work together to meet the expectations of Europe's citizens. It demonstrates that the Committee on Petitions, which the public tends to use as a means of bringing to light the Community system's failings, can also play its part in developing creative and positive Community initiatives. It is also a way in which we can show the petitioners that we do indeed honour our commitments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is a great shame that neither rapporteur has entered into proper consultation over this. We are dealing with a very important piece of legislation and with important articles. We Liberals, along with certain other members of this House, would like to take this opportunity to make it absolutely crystal clear that we are in favour of improving this openness regulation. So I am sorry there has not been enough consultation. We want to show how we uphold the interests of the citizens in this Chamber. ***

Political group: ELDR