GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I shall single out two separate points which I believe are the two key points of the document. Firstly, with regard to the equal opportunities budget itself, it is important in my view that the money intended for initiatives to promote women's equal opportunities – initiatives taken by the NGOs – should indeed be able to be allocated in a simple manner. The conditions now prescribed by the Commission are far too tough and far too difficult. For example, it stipulates that the initiative should be tabled by five countries, and also that it must have a very high budget. This is not feasible for quite a number of women's organisations. Hence the suggestion to admit initiatives if they involve three countries, where the budget can also be a little more restricted. I insist that this change should be made so that the budget can be used more efficiently. The second point of crucial importance to us is gender policy. This should not remain confined to the equal opportunities budget; it should be present in all of the Community's areas of policy. I would draw your attention to one point in particular, namely the conditions for cooperation with the developing countries at a political, economic and cultural level. Commissioner Nielson said a moment ago that the conditions for cooperation in the field of human rights with the ACP countries, Asia and Latin America, are very stringent. Nevertheless, I notice that when human rights are discussed, this does not always include women's rights. This is why we absolutely insist – and this is for us in the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, and I believe also for all the women in Parliament a real must – that cooperation with countries be suspended if they fail to take measures to prevent violence against women, stoning, public chastisement, genital mutilation, cremation or rape. We would therefore ask for aid to be abandoned in those cases.

Political group: PPE-DE
As the Parliament’s rapporteur on the staff elements of your report, Mr Kinnock, I very much welcome the fact that we are now starting the process, and if I may say to all colleagues here, we have a very important task to do, which will be absolutely central to the future of the Commission and its effectiveness. And I make the point, before I move to my questions, that what happens concerning the Staff Regulations in the Commission has a fundamental role on our responsibility also as employers of staff because, of course, the European Parliament staff operate under the same conditions. That will form part of the work that we will have to do and I sure that all of you today will want to engage in that process. Now there were two points I wanted to pick up with Mr Kinnock, if I may. The first one concerns the timescale of these important reforms. Mr Prodi said in his very important opening statement that he had identified severe problems in the Commission about low morale and low motivation, and clearly that is a major concern. Big expectations are built up for these reforms both within the Commission and outside. And if we are to move forward, I suggest to you that the reforms on the personnel side, early evidence of change of culture, empowerment and motivation of staff have to happen sooner rather than later. And if we look at the original proposals – and I suspect that we will see the same in the new ones – it was not until 2002 that we were going to complete overall reform of the Staff Regulations. Indeed, it was not until 2001 that some of the key elements of appraisal were going to be introduced. I suggest that is too long, and we really must move forward much more quickly than that. The second point that I want to make concerns information technology. Have you really taken into account the changes in staff structure that new information technology will bring about, because those will be fundamental in the new direction of these reforms.

Political group: PPE-DE
Matters such as conscription, the use of soft drugs, the obligation to carry an identity card, abortion, euthanasia and the recognition of same-sex marriages are regulated very differently in the different Member States of the European Union. Something which may be against the law in one Member State, is not in another. This proposal does not alter that, with good reason ; even within the federation of the United States, the penalty for offences and crimes is very different because these matters are decided upon at a lower level. That does complicate things if judgments from one Member State are to be carried out in another Member States. Should people be locked up for an action which is not punishable in the relevant country, and should the indignation which inevitably ensues be broken up with police violence? The proposal creates no problems if the action for which a ruling has taken place is punishable in both Member States and if the same penalty applies. I regret that precisely this principle of ‘dual criminality’ has been rejected in the report, even if I can appreciate that this gives major criminals less opportunity, by means of expensive lawyers, to sabotage and delay the course of justice. Only because recital EE provides for possibilities for exclusion due to differences in national legislation, am I prepared to give this proposal the benefit of the doubt.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I, too, wish to congratulate Mrs Weiler on her report. I very much agree with her remark about the significance of training and the importance of making a special effort on behalf of older people in the labour market. I do not agree that we, in the EU, should have a directive granting any rights, but I well understand that many in this House want to see special emphasis and importance given to actually ensuring a right to training. However, this is something which the individual countries must take care of. The employment guidelines provide, of course, both some political priorities and some political objectives, and they also provide a framework for deciding which funds are to be used in order to achieve the objectives. The funds are allocated to four pillars. The unemployed must be made better qualified to obtain jobs. They must be given more incentives to get into employment. That is the first pillar. Secondly, entrepreneurship must be promoted so that we see more companies and jobs created, partly through the removal of constricting regulations and bureaucratic arrangements. Thirdly, adaptability and flexibility must be promoted so that companies become more competitive. And fourthly, more opportunities must be provided for combining working life and family life so that there is a real opportunity for women to achieve equality in the labour market, leading to an improvement in the employment situation where women are concerned. Many points have been registered under the four pillars, and I believe we are coming to a point at which it is worth considering whether we are pinning too much on this process, for the more objectives we add to the process, the more we are also in danger of watering down the cooperation and perhaps losing sight of the real goals, namely those of creating more jobs and getting the unemployed into work. That being said, I am very pleased that, this time, we have obtained an innovation in the guidelines for the year 2000, whereby local and regional efforts are to be involved and local and regional employment strategies developed. I also believe this underlines the fact that the Commission will need resources for carrying out analyses and studies within this area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, after Parliament gave discharge to the 2001 Community budget in April last year, we must now evaluate the measures adopted by the Commission, as a follow-up to the recommendations contained in the framework resolution that gave this discharge. It is firstly important to emphasise the excellent work that Mr Casaca has done as rapporteur, which deserves praise, as it will certainly leave a positive mark on the current legislative period. It also underlines the fact that Parliament is far from being a spent political force. Among the many areas that he could have examined, the rapporteur wisely chose to concentrate on the accounting system, the operations and monitoring of Eurostat and the implementation of the common agricultural policy. As regards the accounting system and the implementation of the CAP, the situation has developed in a far from satisfactory manner. The Commission must therefore speed up the introduction of measures to standardise and streamline the accounting system and must pay special attention to monitoring financial flows relating to refunds, exports and management of stock. As for Eurostat, given that most serious wrongdoings were committed prior to 1999, it is worrying that, in all probability, contraventions of financial regulations have continued beyond 1999. It falls to the Commission to learn the appropriate lessons from this, which do not end at financial irregularities, but in fact take on political dimensions that undermine the very workings of the institutions. While the report does not call for any kind of witch-hunt, which would be most unwelcome at the current stage of the European process, it does make it quite clear that Eurostat might not be the only case and, worse, might not be the most serious case detected in the Commission’s activities. I shall conclude, Mr President, by saying that we must not lose sight of the essence of the political message sent out by proving irregularities and that the rapporteur’s prudent, sensible and workable recommendations must be duly adopted, complied with and enforced. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Of all the major conclusions of the Brussels Summit I feel I must highlight the adoption of the European defence strategy and the statement on transatlantic relations, which Parliament shares and welcomes, but which we reject. These two documents – perhaps adopted in the belief that the IGC would reach its conclusion, and at a time when the United States was excluding some of its partners from the Iraq ‘business’ – clearly show the ambitions of the forces that dominate the European Union – the major powers and big business. They are an appeal to the United States for a commitment to a ‘balanced’ partnership, seeking joint action and the use of all possible means, including military means, and they show the EU’s determination to consolidate its capacities with the intention of sharing the ambition of world domination with the US. The so-called ‘defence’ strategy sets the tone, when it states that the first line of defence must often be located abroad, that we must be ready to pre-empt crises, that we have to develop a strategic culture promoting early, rapid and, if necessary, forceful intervention, that we must be capable of maintaining several operations simultaneously, and that by acting together the EU and the US can be an extraordinary force in the world. This is militarism at its best, and that is why we voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
A small Member State is being subjected to a measure which public opinion in that country has unanimously rejected out of hand. In that country, the impression is now being created that EU membership and democratic decision-making about their own living environment are no longer all that compatible. The arrogance of the large countries and their interests in trade and transport has in this so-called compromise at third reading been the deciding factor. To Germany and Italy, Austria is nothing but an inconvenient barrier to their doing business with each other, to which the impact on the quality of life in the alpine valleys is being completely subordinated. This is the way to act if you want to incur the EU’s hatred. Austria would probably not have become a member of the European Union without the undertakings given upon its accession to restrict through freight traffic on the roads. I do not expect Austria to resign now, but I do not blame it at all for not taking any notice of the decision presently to be taken. From the beginning of this conflict, I have supported the Austrian representatives in this Parliament, on 4 September 2001 and 12 February 2003 to be precise, in the face of complete ignorance on the part of the majority. Today, I am once again joining them in voting against.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, my group fully supports the suggestion to conclude our debate on Genoa by a resolution. I do not propose, however, that we should enter into a debate on the content of this resolution. That is something for the various groups to do. My group believes that Parliament must deliver an opinion on the results – or the lack of results – of the G8 summit, as well as on the extremely serious events which took place during the summit, and on the extraordinary success of the initiatives of the Genoa Social Forum, which also concern us at a time when we are involved in a far-reaching debate on the future of the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted in favour of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten’s report on the situation of frontier workers in the European Union. We have done so because this report highlights the many serious problems faced by frontier workers. A large proportion of these problems can be solved if the Council demonstrates a capacity for action. In spite of the failure to introduce qualified majority voting in this area at the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice, we want to use our vote today to send a powerful signal to the Council and call upon them to complete a thoroughgoing review and simplification of Regulation No 1408. We believe that the rules for coordination must be simple and easy to administer. We cannot therefore support a new directive which adds new procedures to Regulation No 1408. In connection with the debate, we have emphasised that we cannot support the remarks in the report concerning the financing of social security arrangements through taxation. In addition, we want to stress that we do not consider, either, that health benefits such as medical treatment can be compared with general services, and that responsibility for this area must continue solely to be the responsibility of the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin, of course, by congratulating the rapporteur Mr Caudron. I know from experience how much work is involved in bringing a framework programme to a conclusion, at least in draft form. We will now formally adopt this programme today or tomorrow. It is a time for great words, and great words are needed. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the cooperation with the Commission. Paper does not blush, however. We will have a good programme, but the work is only just beginning. What are we going to do with all these objectives set out on paper? How will we achieve these goals? At the moment, this is written not so much in the stars as in the heads of the civil servants or, indeed, the Commissioner. We therefore urgently need more precise details of this entire project. We urgently need the specific programmes. That is the first point. We also urgently need further cooperation with the Commission if these specific programmes have to be amended by this House. The second point is this: there is no sense in allocating EUR 17, 18, 16 billion – the figure has not yet been finally decided – if these funds are not used where they are most needed, that is, in the universities, in industry, and in the SMEs. It is therefore vital to ensure that the rules governing participation in this framework programme are practicable, in line with the realities of the research world, and meet the needs of companies seeking to develop their innovations on the basis of this funding. After all, we should not forget that research and innovation are not ends in themselves. The purpose of research and innovation is to bring products to market and improve our competitiveness. This can only be achieved if there are significant levels of participation, if the allocation instruments are transparent, and if everyone, from Finland to Sicily and Greece, knows what his or her position is. The real work therefore starts here, not only for the Commission staff but also for us. After the framework programme means before the next framework programme, but, above all, it means during implementation. This House must therefore look very closely to determine how much continuity exists between the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes, how reliable the instruments used by the Commission are, and how this money is spent. We will also carry out an ex post audit. Thank you very much. I look forward to further years of cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as we all know, climate change is perhaps the most difficult environmental problem of our time to solve. This is not, of course, because we do not know what changes are required, but because the necessary changes would have such massive repercussions upon the whole of our transport and energy policy and, in point of fact, upon our whole method of consuming. We face completely fundamental social changes if we are to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It is the most developed countries – the countries with the highest economic standards and the highest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases – which have the biggest responsibility for taking the lead where reductions in greenhouse gases are concerned. In the run-up to the conference in The Hague, it therefore appears absolutely crucial to involve the United States in an agreement which leads both to real progress and to a situation in which the Kyoto Protocol can be ratified. A responsible policy on the part of the most developed countries must be based upon those countries’ being able to reduce their own emissions. If there is to be a place for emissions trading, which is something I am very doubtful about, the latter should only constitute a minor part of the policy as a whole, in which case any such trading must also be strictly controlled, with consideration given to the social dimension and to the opportunities for developing countries to make further progress in the future. This system may entail very large risks in the future if Russia and the developing countries are included in the emissions trading and the practice becomes global. However, there are other types of flexible mechanism which can be used to advantage at a global level. Emissions and abatements trading are no substitute for the real changes required. The same applies, of course, to nuclear power. Instead, we need a vigorous policy to promote lower energy use, renewable energy sources, alternative fuels and effective environmental taxes on methods of transport. It is mainly the responsibility of the individual Member States to implement these measures. Where tax is concerned, a common minimum tax is to be desired. If it is not possible to agree upon a tax on greenhouse gases within the EU, those countries which are prepared to take the lead ought in any case to get together and introduce such a tax. When it comes to Mr Moreira Da Silva’s reports, we agree with the content of most of the paragraphs, but we are more sceptical about emissions trading. A system of that kind may be an interesting experiment at EU level, but it is no substitute for other measures.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in the German press preview there was a headline that is very apt for this dossier. It read: fresh goods need fresh drivers. It is actually the case that we are usually more concerned with the economy and competition, and that all too often the issue of safety and the life and health of the public is given short shrift. We recently experienced the Prestige disaster. When there is an accident at sea or in the air the public in Europe is outraged, but the daily deaths on our roads are something that we have obviously become accustomed to. We should not become accustomed to them, however, because there are – as the statistics show – two main causes of accidents on our roads. The first is HGVs with overtired drivers, who are at the wheel for far too long, and the second, increasingly, is the express services, the so-called sprinter class, which represent the greatest potential for danger on our roads and motorways. That is why it is absolutely crucial for us to include these express services, this sprinter class, in this regulation. In the committee we arrived at a consensus on a series of sensible rules for driving times and rest periods that are realistic and geared to the needs of both drivers and companies. I think it is sensible, if at all possible, for drivers to spend their weekly rest periods at home, where they live, with their families. It is also sensible, if they are nearly at a ferry and can spend their rest time there, for the driving times and rest times to allow them to reach that ferry. Obviously it is not sensible to spend a rest time in a travelling vehicle, and we have therefore stated this in the text. As Mr Grosch has already said, we can adopt as many wonderful, detailed, even obsessively detailed, rules as we like, but if they cannot be enforced then they are just words. For me, in any case, this is also one of the most important points. At present we have an average inspection rate of barely 1% and it is actually only possible to carry out real inspections, real checks, if both the roadside check on what the vehicle is doing and the check on the undertaking are done in tandem. However, practice in the Member States of the Community is very variable and it is for this reason, Commissioner, that the transitional period, between our bidding farewell to the traditional tachograph and introducing the digital tachograph, has to be as short as possible, so that we can inspect all of the HGVs in the Community by means of a digital tachograph as soon as possible. The fact that this allows a period of 28 days to be monitored in a roadside check will make a huge contribution to improving safety on Europe's roads. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Helmut Markov, who has done a good job, was very willing to compromise and united us behind his proposals, and also the other Members who were shadow rapporteurs for this dossier. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
While in principle we adopt a positive view of the European Parliament and the Council’s recommendation on mobility within the Community, we would like to state the following: We believe that, from the point of view of equality and justice, it is very important that third-country nationals resident within the EU should have the right to utilise the provisions of Community legislation on the same terms as the Union’s own citizens. We also believe that, to a great extent, the Member States themselves should be allowed to decide on the taxes to be collected. Healthy competition will reduce the tax burden on businesses, encouraging entrepreneurship and therefore the creation of job opportunities. In this way, the states’ loss of income due to tax competition may be offset by the fact that more people are paying income tax. We are therefore opposed to Amendment 38 concerning the introduction of common tax regulations for volunteers.

Political group: ELDR