GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the . The fact that major conferences, such as Seattle and Doha, have been unsuccessful also implies the failure of the major organisations which are at world level involved in the economic processes, the distribution of labour and wealth, and the social processes on this planet: the United Nations, the WTO, the International Labour Organisation, but also our own European institutions. Rich world states should search their own conscience. We hope that Johannesburg is a turning point. They will have to start talking somewhere about sustainable development in a way that gives this development centre stage. Establishing the reasons why this has been impossible to date will also lead to the answer as to what has gone wrong at our end. Economic processes have an impact worldwide. Political authorities and institutions, including the European Union, have helped remove the barriers to the globalisation that had been made possible by the development of our western technology. However, despite a host of elected politicians and officials of international institutions, we have failed to bring about the necessary legislation on the same scale and with the same efficiency in order to ensure that humanity as a whole, and people in the south, in particular, can live their lives in dignity. Not in a material sense or in a cultural sense. In the area of trade, it has been possible to lay down effective legislation with a sanctioning body within the framework of the WTO. However, from our experience in the European Union, we know that promoting trade on its own is dangerous. It almost always leads to social exclusion of the weak. Poverty, destruction of social and cultural structures, of standards and values can be the outcome. And this is what dictators, international Mafia, arms dealers and warmongers prey on. Along with the rapporteur, I therefore conclude that the hierarchy of standards at international level is there for a reason. We should not only concern ourselves with corrections, but with sustainable global development. The rights that are regulated by the International Labour Organisation cannot be enforced adequately. And I suggest that we start by looking whether we ourselves strike the right balance within the framework of our own European institutions. We will see when the subsidies in agriculture, for example, will be brought up for discussion for the first time.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, let us remember that Egypt is one of the great ancient civilisations. It has always been a pillar of culture and progress since ancient days. Today, its recent former foreign minister is Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Egypt is primus inter pares in perpetuity in the Arab League. Yet we have these most unfortunate men charged with an offence that we in the European Union cannot accept as a matter of anything other than rank discrimination. In the light of the European Mediterranean Partnership that we have, we speak as friends of Egypt, because indeed Egypt today is still one of the foremost defenders of democratic rights and guarantees of democracy and human freedoms in the entire Arab world. We respect its culture, its background, its history, its religion. But still, as friends, and, in most particular, because of our deep profound partnership with Egypt, we ask it to think again. Today, in supporting this important resolution, we call upon the Council and the Commission to speak for Parliament in asking the Egyptian Government to think again.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would first like to thank Mr Pronk for pointing out that Article 202 is by no means a legislative soft option, and it does not make life easy for the Council or the Commission. I would also like to thank the Commissioner for her clear statement about the arrangements for the tripartite social summit, and to thank the Danish Presidency for attempting to accommodate us. What I do not understand as the nominated rapporteur, however, is that at a moment when we are anxious to tackle employment policy and growth in an active way, we are wasting time. The intention was to begin making arrangements for this standing tripartite social summit now, before the spring summit, so that the social partners could start work straight away. The approach we have now adopted means that we are wasting time again, possibly a whole year, at a point when we want to play an active role on employment issues. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has virtually been neutralised – we do not have an appropriate mechanism here. This means that the social dialogue will not be particularly mobilised as a fundamental mechanism for the social partners to be able to – or in fact be obliged to – achieve something practice-related. At a point when the term ‘social dimension’ and thus all the mechanism that involves – notably the social dialogue – are constantly on everyone's lips, and when we are talking about deepening social issues in Europe, we are wasting time. I just cannot understand that. One more point: today we stand on the threshold of the enlargement of the European Union. I have discussed these issues with many partner states and they all want a properly functioning mechanism in this field, and one that would help all the new Member States. However, I do not believe that it will be easier, if the mechanism does not become operational under the Greek Presidency, to sort matters out later on, once the new Member States have joined us. Things can only get more difficult then, because the existing social partnerships, industrial relations that is, are not so robust. That is the problem we face. I do not need to use all my speaking time; I have already expressed my indignation about the fact that Article 202 is constantly referred to as a soft option. Parliament's Legal Service will give us its opinion on this next week, and I hope that will help us somewhat. I would like to thank the Danish Presidency and Commissioner Diamantopoulou once again for their support. I hope that 3 December will be a productive day in this area.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I was pleased to hear that for the next Council the Commission intends to insist that the Council assume its responsibilities with regard to the directive on employees’ rights to information and consultation. As several Members have already pointed out, it is now three years since Parliament gave it its first reading. In these three years we have several times in this House debated problems of redundancies, mergers and company relocations, but the Council has never assumed any responsibility, has never had the courage to face up to this subject and make a decision, adding something to the laws and other instruments that the Union has and can use to strengthen its own intervention regarding companies’ social responsibilities. Now it seems that some countries have dropped their reservations, and so the conditions are right for the next Council to take up a position. The information and consultation problem is one that has something to do with the possibility of intervening in a preventive manner so that the consequences of unilateral company decisions are not such that they place jobs, working conditions or the living conditions of workers at risk. For this to happen, however, it is necessary to reach a precise agreement, and Parliament’s positions from this point of view were highly specific even at first reading on the methods, times and content of consultations and information. In addition – and I am pleased that the Commission has remembered this – there is a fundamental instrument which, paradoxically, is regarded as a fundamental element in all laws except those concerning workers, i.e. that of penalties. There is no law on any subject that does not lay down penalties for breach of the law. Only in the case of workers’ rights does this still not happen in Europe. The directive on the right to information and consultation does lay down sanctions, and I am pleased that the Commission is maintaining this position. Parliament not only upholds the Commission’s position but supports the Commission in its position and I believe this matter of penalties will not only be confirmed in the Council’s positions on the directive but will extend to other legislation as well – works councils, mass redundancies – otherwise without a penalty instrument all these laws too will be less effective than we would like them to be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in this Chamber we are very frequently engaged in debating what we consider to be the great political issues. But I seem to remember that when we were elected in 1999 our greatest concern was how we made our debates relevant to our electors. I want to tell you that the area that I represent here in Parliament – the constituency of Wales – is a country that was markedly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. This debate is very relevant to people in my constituency who suffered from what has been described as a community tragedy. There was an impact on a really human scale. We sometimes do not recognise the sense of isolation that was felt by many farmers and by other people living in rural areas because of the devastating economic and other impacts of this outbreak. I therefore want to begin by thanking the committee for visiting Welshpool, Builth Wells and Sennybridge and meeting people within my constituency who said to Mr Kreissl-Dörfler that the European Parliament was the only official body that came to listen to their views. That addresses, in my view, the issue of the relevance of the European Parliament. Setting up the committee has been a worthwhile exercise. Secondly, I am sorry we had such difficulty in establishing the committee. I am sorry it was such a struggle. I am sorry that the British Government was so anxious about its own position – that there might be any criticism of its position – that we struggled for some six months to get the committee up and running. We all recognise that it was just one group that was opposed to setting up the committee. Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, though coming from that group, has been a paragon in approaching this issue in a non-political way. His report is first-rate. His report has endeavoured to address the real core issues that are of concern. Contrary to the views of the people who said that this exercise was going to be irrelevant, Commissioner, we are looking forward to your statement tomorrow, and to having a statement that addresses the concerns outlined by the committee that have emerged in the course of the last year. Others have touched upon the details. I do not want to do that. All I want to say is this: this is a report that had almost universal support in committee. I am sorry that some additional amendments have been tabled because we should cling to the consensus that is within the report. It is the best example, in my view, of the European Parliament addressing the concerns of voters in a practical way. It is a huge example for the future relevance of the European Parliament. It is a tragedy that at the last minute there are some people who still feel it is appropriate, rather churlishly, to protect the reputation of the UK Government. We are engaged in much more important things than that. I ask you to look at the report as it came out of the committee and to respond accordingly, Commissioner. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the question Mr Nisticò is raising here about changing the voting order has been discussed, I believe, in the course of the last 10 days with Mr Nisticò, and we reached the conclusion evident from the voting list a long time ago. I do not therefore understand at all why Mr Nisticò is raising the issue now. Amendments Nos 55 and 56 should clearly be voted on before Amendment No 75, and there has been agreement about this for quite a long time. However, it seems that Mr Nisticò still wants to try to raise doubts about the matter. I do not understand why.

Political group: PSE
I congratulate Mr Mantovani on the report he has presented to us, which addresses an issue that should be of concern to us all, namely our citizens’ future with regard to healthcare and care for the elderly. Because this is a communication that achieved the broad consensus of the various parties involved, I should like to reiterate my support for the Commission’s conclusions and for the aims proposed for developing practical policies to achieve active ageing and the involvement of all interested parties in defining policies in the field of social protection, inclusion and employment. Bearing in mind the need to respond to the problem of ageing in a way that ensures not only economic growth but also financial sustainability, and in line with the strategy adopted by the Gothenburg Council of June 2001, the Member States’ targets must be to achieve increased rates of employment, to reduce public debt in order to compensate for increased spending on pensions and healthcare and to reform pension schemes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Union lacks moral authority. That is particularly problematic in matters of finances. Parliament could achieve it, and it does wish to, which is clear from the reports now under discussion, but it lacks credibility in this area. To maintain its own self-respect Parliament must accept the rules and regulations for the Members forthwith. Parliament must investigate the misappropriation of funds by its political groups. Our group will not agree that the practice of party aid should be introduced at the taxpayer’s expense to cover up such malpractice. Parliament must investigate why it was so lax in its vigilance when it came to millions of euros’ worth of Parliament property disappearing. I do not really understand why it should discharge itself just now, when the report by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities on monetary and economic issues for 1998 is being prepared and is about to be published. I would remind you how difficult it was in Parliament to raise the issue of malpractice on the basis of the accounts of the Commission for 1996. I would remind you how the Social Democrats in particular defended Mr Santer’s Commission, and how we were obliged to compile a list of Members’ names when passing a motion of censure. Those parliamentary members that compiled the list were obviously right. The 1998 accounts and data give weight to earlier conclusions: Mr Santer’s Commission appears to have approved a framework of budgetary discipline in which it was possible for malpractice to exist. The members of the Commission in many cases are not themselves guilty of furthering their own interests, but the officials continue to act as before, and this Commission must take them to task. To support them will be the fifty or so trade union officials employed by the EU, defending people who are guilty of malpractice. They are the home guard for the officials that have behaved dishonourably. Most of the officials in the EU are diligent and decent people. In this case there is a need for increased vigilance, and that is something Mr Santer’s Commission was unable to achieve. It would appear that Romano Prodi’s Commission has not got off to a very good start in this respect either, and the President of the Commission, in particular, has delivered opinions that show that the notions of public accessibility and transparency are not being honoured in this Commission. However, postponing the discharge is justified and is the correct course of action in this situation. We want to give the Commission the opportunity to improve the way it does things and show that it is able to do the job it inherited from the previous Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, openness will be one of the most important yardsticks for citizens in assessing the results of the EU’s efforts concerning future reform. The EU institutions must show citizens that they are prepared to live up to their expectations. In European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, we have a specific set of rules whose Article 4 addresses the need for secrecy. This must not be sidelined through the institutions’ internal rules and classification. The Inter-institutional Committee has an important brief and it must push ahead and implement existing legislation in a spirit of greater openness. Hopefully, the Spanish Presidency will manage to push through proposals in Seville that will comply with expectations. Spain has a big responsibility in terms of openness. Spain could take the initiative in helping to foster a more positive attitude in those who still harbour doubts about openness. Particularly in view of Spain’s earlier reticence, it is now important to demonstrate a more positive approach to openness. The fact that the Council of Ministers is to meet openly when discussing legislation is a step in the right direction. To this I would like to add a wish list for Seville. All the documents – – including those from Council working groups – – that are subject to the co-decision procedure and the first pillar, must be available. This would be the logical follow-up to your earlier comments. Subsequently, we should also be provided with information on national positions. Finally, we also need reasonable democratic control of documents covered by the second and third pillars. The pillar structure is, at the end of the day, a totally useless construction for establishing openness.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our Group supports the work done by Mr Baltas on the report on the feasibility of negotiating stabilisation and association agreements with the Republic of Croatia. We also think that the Commission has acted at the appropriate time to launch this proposal. We think that the work has been done in record time, and we congratulate Mr Baltas on his efficient work in committee. We think that it is timely because, although at the time, we, as the European left, criticised some countries of Western Europe for their role in the break up of the former Yugoslavia, through encouraging, facilitating or instigating hatred and aggression, both ethnic and of other kinds, which resulted in the emergence of Croatia, at this time, when its recent past has also changed, I think it is a very good sign that the European Union is taking a step forward to help recover the mood of tolerance, democracy, respect for human rights and living in harmony with other republics and areas in the region, because it is of vital importance for the European Union. We should not forget the suffering of the almost three hundred thousand people, of Serbian origin, who were violently expelled in a week, by terrorist methods, from Krajina, and had to flee to Serbia. I think it is important to recognise that it was wrong and that those people be helped to return, if they wish, to their homes. That would prove that tolerance, living together in harmony and respect for different opinions are possible in the Balkan region and it would improve the prospects for our future in the area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission’s declaration is a confirmation of the European Union’s aim to maintain peaceful and stable relations with the countries in the Middle East region. This is the only possible approach and does not prevent the EU from presenting its own opinions and objectives within the framework of global partnership. In practice these are complex situations. What is more important is to understand the ordinary basic mechanisms which either hamper or encourage stability, just as Mr Schuman did when he put forward his brilliant genesis of an idea for the Communities that served as a basis for the EU. I would in this connection like to highlight one basic mechanism that has an effect on stability and peace: a clean environment. Clean water, as was shown in Jordan recently, is a vital necessity, and to attain it all the countries in the West Bank region must find a solution both separately and together. Unfortunately, the international community is still not even aware of the environmental destruction which is a reality in the West Bank. Excessive water extraction, conducting untreated waste water to Jordan, and the uncontrolled dumping of community waste have led to unthinkable health risks and a shortage of water. The West Bank environment project is a multicultural and multilateral project which aims to solve major problems threatening the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the region. The project is not, however, making adequate progress. The reason is not low levels of finance or a lack of know-how and technology. The reason is chiefly that, for a project which is under way in a region occupied by three countries, there exists no political forum to agree on practical matters that are essential for its implementation, even though all the parties involved are agreed in principle on the needs and the measures to be taken. One may without exaggeration say that the EU is at present the only player in the world that could offer a political forum for attempts like the West Bank environment project to build stability and peace through action on the part of the inhabitants of the region. A neutral mediator is needed to initiate decision-making that overrides political controversies. If it were not for examples of voluntary action like the West Bank environment project, all the other work the EU does to implement the Middle East peace plans would be in vain.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members who have taken part in the discussion. I am perhaps slightly disappointed by the view of the . The objectives of the programme which have been raised in this report originate predominantly from the Commission's notification section, but also include many of the same objectives which President of the Commission Romano Prodi raised in his own presentation of sustainable development at the last sitting in Strasbourg. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs; in my opinion the work was carried out well. I would also like to thank you for your observations; I personally aim to start discussions at as early a stage as possible and maintain contact with the various bodies during the work. I hope that I have succeeded in this. I also hope that the is able to support this report because I have taken their proposals very broadly into account in proceedings in the committee. Possibly for this reason, this final proposal now coming for its first reading has become something of a mixture of combined hopes, but Bernd Lange and David Bowe gave a very clear idea of how we can work further on this programme document. Thank you once again.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I already raised a point about the Minutes yesterday evening. Under item 6 of the Minutes, pages 6 to 7, there is a reference to the motion which I put concerning the inadmissibility of paragraph 6 of the Cunha report. I asked for a roll-call vote and the President in the Chair clearly stated that there would be a roll-call vote on that. Indeed we voted using our voting machines. But I understand that no record has been kept. I should like to have it recorded that there should have been a roll-call vote on that and there ought to have been a nominal list available of the votes for and against that motion.

Political group: Verts-ALE