GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs proposes that we ratify the draft Council directive laying down a global employment policy for the European Union for completion by 2010. This policy falls within the context of the Lisbon strategy which aims to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The amendments made to this legislative resolution improve the initial text in certain aspects, in particular with regard to gender equality objectives and taking account of qualifications and vocational training. The amendments, however, do not challenge the liberal idea of reducing company taxation and flexibility in the labour market. What is even more important is that the resolution retains the objective of increasing the average age at retirement by five years at Community level by 2010, while millions of people are demonstrating in France and in other European countries against this idea and to protect their pension systems. For this reason, I did not vote for the report. - Report Roure (A5-0137/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, for an organisation with an expenditure in excess of EUR 92 billion the Financial Regulation is almost the most important legal basis for ensuring careful use of European money and preventing abuse so far as possible. It is more necessary than ever to stress this aspect because the Commission itself informed us two weeks ago that the sum of money lost as a result of fraud and irregularities in the year 2000 amounts to an impressive EUR 2028 million. That really is nothing for Europe to be proud of! Remedial action is more than necessary. The only question is how the Commission proposes to rectify the situation. As part of its reform programme it wants to abolish the independent financial controller, the very institution that experience shows to have been the most successful in combating fraud – I only have to mention the Fléchard case. That is like the police ordering all guard dogs to be put down after the number of burglaries in a residential area has doubled. Parliament has argued for decentralised independent financial control, in fact it has voted for it several times, most recently on 4 April 2001 in the preliminary report for discharge for 1998. The financial controller is also anchored in the Treaty. An internal auditor is not a financial controller in new clothing but a dummy package that for my group at any rate is unacceptable. A necessary counterpart to independent financial control is the clear assignment of responsibility, of liability for deliberate contraventions or neglect of duty by officials such as is, incidentally, found in the national laws of all the Fifteen. It seems to me that the Commission’s reform efforts will in this instance result in financial responsibility being passed to and fro like in a marshalling yard until in the end nobody knows what track it is on. The Financial Regulation should make for clarity, transparency and comprehensibility in the implementation of the budget. That is the only way we shall get the citizens to accept it!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the Council and the Commission, first of all I would like to express my full support for the resolution and the words of the representatives of the Council and the Commission here present. I do not need, either on behalf of my group or on behalf of my own Galician political organisation, to reiterate my categorical rejection and condemnation of terrorism. In this regard, I would like to emphasise that the resolution requires the creation of conditions to combat terrorism within the context of absolute respect for the law and human rights, both through the eradication of poverty and marginalisation, and through the fight against fundamentalist ideology, which – even more than poverty – is often given as the main justification for terrorism. Having said this, I would like to highlight three specific issues. First of all, I believe it is necessary to talk about a practical policy and reject – as the resolution also does to some extent – the militarist unilateralism of the United States and its doctrine of pre-emptive action which contravenes all international rules. In this respect, it should be highlighted that the US is preparing to take action against another country, which is governed by a dictatorship, an ideology which we clearly do not share; on the other hand, it has hardly been able to arrest anybody in relation to the September 11 attacks. Anybody at all. Twenty people were involved in these attacks in the US and nobody has been arrested in direct relation to them. I would also like to draw attention to the problem in the Middle East. It seems to me that we all agree that the problem of Palestine is at the root of international terrorism, and in any case, it is apparently the justification for this terrorism. There is no question of solving this as if it were a religious problem; it concerns a State, regardless of its professed religion, against a colonised nation, regardless of its professed religion. I believe that we should pay great attention to this issue. Until the problems between Israel and Palestine are solved, if peace is not promoted and the Palestinian State created, it will be difficult to combat a fundamental part of the apparent justification for terrorism. Mr President, I shall end by saying this: the fight against terrorism cannot – as the resolution says – become a fight against political groups which use peaceful means with a view to changing the political and social structure, such as, for example, what is happening in the Spanish State and in Europe in general. And frequently the necessary dialogue is not promoted, not only between political groups, but also between different institutions which are affected and which suffer the effects of terrorism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our climate is already changing. Over the past one thousand years, we have seen a drop in the temperature by one-fifth of a degree. But over the past fifty years, it has become one and a half degrees warmer. This warming process is accelerating all the time. Many citizens like the idea of a climate one or two degrees warmer, but the warm Gulf Stream which is giving us a pleasant climate at the moment could turn at any time. Europe would then acquire a climate like that in Canada, where, for many weeks during winter, the temperature is between –20 to –30. We need radical measures to stop global warming. The Kyoto Protocol is too restricted. The increase in air traffic in the next fifteen years alone will cancel out the reductions achieved via the Kyoto Protocol. China is already emitting more greenhouse gases than is sustainable. We cannot turn a blind eye to this. After 2020, developing countries too are supposed to fight greenhouse gases, but on an equal footing. Each world citizen has the same right to emit CO2. American citizens should not be entitled to emit two hundred times more CO2 than people in East Africa. On the basis of equity, the international trade in CO2 certificates is supposed to be going ahead after 2008. Only on this basis will developing countries, such as China and India, get involved. Opting in The Hague for the American line of grandfathering will block this route. Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources are the way forward, both in the North and in the South, and not 25 cm high bushes, as the Australian government is proposing, or other forest projects which cannot be verified. Subsidising nuclear energy with Clean Development Mechanism funding is not the answer either. That would be perverse at a time when America and Europe are doing nothing but closing down nuclear power stations. Fortunately, our ministers and the Commission are on the right side. I wish them tenacity on behalf of my group. The swift ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is the right way forward. We should not rely on the American Senate. After ratification, CO2 emission will have a price tag. At present, it is still free to the large industries and the electricity producers in Europe, which are, together, responsible for 45% of CO2 emissions. The Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within Europe is an excellent initiative. Europe must make every effort to achieve this 8% objective. I would call on the European Commission to come up with extra proposals to curtail emissions in the transport sector. Only if we achieve this 8% objective can we be credible. And only then are climatic breakthroughs at world level possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Does the Commission share the view that the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is a project of great importance both for the future of European energy supplies and for the economic development of Turkey and other countries in the region?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I feel myself honoured to be allowed to say the last word here today. Before wishing you good-night, I would of course like to avail myself of the opportunity to tell you what I think and, as one who comes from Germany, to set out in clear terms the importance of external border control, Germany being, as Mr von Boetticher has just said, a country with a vast external border. So, Commissioner, we are very glad that you have presented this communication, and also that the report by the PPE- Group's Mr Pirker has proposed the right thing and enjoys our support for that reason. I assume that Parliament's united manifestation of agreement with the Commission in this area will, perhaps with the Greek Presidency's help, make it possible to win the Council over, as the Greek Presidency has already signalled the importance it attaches to combating illegal immigration and smugglers of any kind. I have high hopes of them. This Parliament does of course have Members who persist in regarding the reinforcement of police or border control units as problematic, and who tell us how much better all these things should be done. Over and over again, they ask why we need the police so much. I can tell them in all frankness that I should prefer to deploy as many police officers as possible and have a secure border that prevents refugees escaping to their deaths. I become really fed up with it all and find myself thinking that the responsibility must be shouldered by us all together. We cannot keep on standing idly by while people die, and the only way we can prevent people dying is if our borders are secure and illegal immigrants are no longer exploited or abused by gangs of smugglers. It is for that reason that I hope we can all reach our objective together. Good night.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Minister. Just to continue on the question of the IGC, Parliament will probably ask, under institutional reforms and especially the chapter on decision-making procedures, to have assent for international agreements and codecision on other matters. So do you have a feeling about how these discussions may develop in the IGC?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I think that it is quite reasonable to propose two votes at the same time, but I insist that there should be two votes: firstly, a vote on the principle of establishing a committee of inquiry, which was rejected by the Conference of Presidents, and there may have to be a second vote if agreement is reached on establishing a temporary committee, which, I must point out, serves a quite different purpose. These are two different problems and a close look at the Rules of Procedure will show that Rule 151 does not provide for a temporary committee: it only mentions a committee of inquiry. I feel that the plenary is within its rights to state its opinion on the position adopted by the Conference of Presidents.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on a point of order, I appreciate the Commissioner's answer, which is very clear, but he said that he had organised a special meeting on open software to stimulate the use of open software by the public sector. My question is what is the Commission itself doing? Is it also going to switch to working only with open software, so that for us too there is more protection in this field?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, quite obviously the European Union is currently experiencing a mild recession and the future is not very bright either. The costs of the war and then the costs of the peace will weigh heavily on the world economy and therefore also on the European economy. Can we afford, Commissioner, to continue to suffocate ourselves with a dogmatic policy of stability, which is seen as an end in itself? Of course stability is a public good! But economic policy cannot be restricted solely to combating public deficits. At present, the United States, paradoxically, has a much more pragmatic economic and fiscal policy than Europe. The American public deficit, calculated in accordance with the Maastricht criteria, would now be in excess of 5%. Should not the Stability and Growth Pact be supplemented, Commissioner, with a pact to coordinate economic policy, which would give a boost to growth and employment and would seek to stimulate public and private investment in research on infrastructure and regional development, and in training and the labour market?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Europe formerly knew of Venezuela only as a supplier of crude oil and iron ore and as a base for European adventurers. Now that a stubborn president is refusing to accept the democratic will of the people, must the country go back to being what it was? I want to share with this House my own experiences of it. Half a century ago, I was one of the children in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, who did not go to school but instead roamed through sewers and shanty towns built against mountain slopes, their houses made out of orange crates with roofs of corrugated iron. Large cars, luxurious houses and golf courses were enjoyed by a small elite, while, on the street, close to the doors of smart offices and shops, I saw sick, legless beggars. The hospital where my father died was filthy and chaotic. What limited public transport existed was in the hands of various companies, each with buses in their own colours, but without proper connections. In other parts of the country, in the second city, Maracaibo, for example, I saw Indians, impoverished and shunned by everyone. The road from the capital to the coast was lined with crosses for people who had fallen to their deaths, while, on other roads, dust storms were whipped up as you drove along. The president was a dictator who had his opponents hanged from lampposts by his police force, recruited from Italian immigrants. My experiences at that time gave me the hope and the expectation that the people would not always accept this scandalous combination of dictatorship and extreme wealth, extreme poverty and extreme neglect. Forty years later, they stopped resigning themselves to their lot and could at last have a hope of a stable existence, growth and solidarity. By a large majority, they democratically chose a parliament composed along different lines, a new constitution and a quite different sort of president. That President Chávez put too much faith in the army and did little to help the victims of the great natural calamity does not justify the coup d’état in which he was abducted and replaced temporarily by the chairman of the employers’ federation. Nor do his shortcomings justify the forging of an immense number of signatures in order to get sufficient support for a referendum aimed at again deposing him. While the United States recognises the present Venezuelan Government as legitimate, the two major groups in this European Parliament allow themselves to be led by their contacts with parties that were formerly in government, but have been voted out by the Venezuelan electorate. Things can and must get better in Venezuela, but going back to the way things were will not help matters at all. The European Union’s support for the new Venezuela is the best way to prevent provocative and violent acts on the part of both the government and the political opposition, but unwarranted nostalgia leads only to disaster. (Applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should first like to pay tribute to Commissioner Vitorino, because I believe that it is thanks to his tireless work that today we are able to draw a clear distinction between asylum-seekers and immigration, and this is to be welcomed. I would also thank the representative of the Belgian Presidency, who has just definitively abandoned the idea of a fortress Europe, which it is neither feasible nor desirable to achieve. Finally, I should like to thank our colleague, Mr Evans, for his painstaking work. I believe that it is by applying clear, fair and precise standards that we will not only ensure that refugees are protected but also fight to release them from the grasp of criminal organisations. In my opinion, Mr Evans's painstaking work is in stark contrast to the partisan vision presented by Mr Pirker. Mr Pirker poses some complex questions, but the answers are inadequate and even dangerous. This internal report by Mr Pirker, comprising reflection, analysis and proposals, is one of the weakest which we have had to discuss in this Parliament. Firstly, it contains a series of commonplaces. After a time, it says, immigrants adopt the birth-rate pattern of the host country. As I see it, this is a sign of integration and proof that attitudes change. Instead of being delighted about this, however, Mr Pirker expresses concern about the fact that the destiny of women from the third world, female immigrants who have come from the South, is not confined to having children. He also recommends a policy to recruit a set number of workers which, he says, is supported by the Member States as a way of reducing the labour shortage in certain sectors. For him, immigrants are like Kleenex: you use them and when you no longer need them you throw them away. This is a vision of the human being, more particularly black and African, or dark-skinned, human beings who come from the South, which I do not share. Mr Pirker's report deplores family reunification. Mr Pirker's report does, I believe, in many respects, stand in total contradiction to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. Faced with an issue of this complexity, instead of saying that the tragedy in Dover opened our eyes to the possible consequences of immigration, we would have preferred him to consider taking measures against the hauliers who are the real proponents of modern slavery and against the slum landlords ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Clearly, enlargement of the European Union is the most important issue for the immediate future. We understand that you have discussed the progress reports which are to be published next week. Now, part of this progress towards enlargement – that concerned with cooperation on legal matters and between countries of the EU as it stands at present – is not being overseen by the Commission but by the Council of Ministers. All right, so we know this, but will any progress within this area be described in your reports? Or is there a risk of the Council not making it public? It would be very worrying if that were the case and if we in Parliament or our opposite numbers in the countries which are candidates for accession to the European Union were unable to study the progress made. Now, another small question by the way, Mr President of the Commission. Have you anything against your letter to Prime Minister Lipponen about the Tampere Summit being published? It has been published in Sweden, and I imagine that you, with your policy of openness, would not object to its being published. Prime Minister Lipponen, however, refuses to let it be published in Finland. How do you view this?

Political group: ELDR
This parliamentary vote has fulfilled the commitment imposed on Parliament by Parliament itself and by the European citizens to create, as quickly as possible, a legal measure to allow the EU to mobilise the necessary funds to help disaster-stricken areas. We must congratulate ourselves on this. In my opinion, however, the result could have been even better. First of all, greater transparency. What was adopted today should have been annexed to the existing interinstitutional agreement, not a new standard. Secondly, a matter of rigidity. Item 2 states that, in October, 25% of the Fund must be available as a matter of obligation. This is too rigid. If, in a given tax year, 75% is spent in spring, would the Commission have to make a recommendation that we all avoid bringing disasters on ourselves until the beginning of October? Lastly, an inconsistency on the part of the Council. In order to make the best use of appropriations, the Council asked to be able to redistribute existing appropriations, but only in the amended spending categories: Internal Spending and Pre-accession. In Internal Spending, however, there is not a single euro left to spend. Redistribution in the event of a disaster can therefore only apply to pre-accession countries. Would it not be possible to use any agricultural appropriations that are not spent during the year? - Poignant report (A5-0339/2002)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have a double reason to refuse this recommendation on the second generation Schengen information system. We refuse to approve this electronic database for personal information, a system which the author wishes to update, since it is a tool of police repression, and we reject even more the policy which this tool is intended to serve. The States for whom the fight against terrorism serves as a universal justification want this database to receive supplementary data and to be combined with the system managing visas. The ability to consult it would be extended to judicial authorities which have not so far had access to it. This tool of repression is drawn up personally against migrant workers, preventing them from coming to the European Union while at the same time threatening the freedom of everybody. To spend millions of euros on sophisticated surveillance equipment and on a system for sharing information on people who crossed a border which was open to them and which is now being slammed in their faces is scandalous. This is the way to create and perpetuate the dramatic situations in which unscrupulous smugglers prosper. We are opposed to the policy of a fortress Europe, surrounded by barbed wire, whether electronic or simply legal. This is a retrograde, reactionary and inhuman policy. The destiny of the peoples of the south of the European Union has forever been linked to that of the people of the other side of the Mediterranean, from Morocco to Egypt. The populations of the new member countries of the east of Europe have thousands of links with the populations of the countries of the ex-Soviet Union. To restrict the freedom of movement between the European Union and the neighbouring countries is a cruel blow against these people. We reject it and we will vote against.

Political group: GUE-NGL