GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I abstained from voting in the final vote. I believe it is absolutely crucial that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights should involve subscribing to the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights. The word ‘constitution’ is intellectually and politically misleading. Instead, the proper concept should instead be the ‘recapitulation and simplification of the EU Treaties’. The Swedish do not believe that the Convention has proved to be a democratic or effective method of working when it comes to producing a Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is true in terms of the understanding shown both of the national parliaments and their constitutional committees and of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs. In practice, the Convention’s presidency has produced its own summary of the views which the various participants are taken to have arrived at. In the event of the Convention method being used in future, its task should be limited to that of acting as a focus group.

Political group: PPE-DE
Relief, rehabilitation and development: pensioners and the Pensioners’ Party are in favour. Indeed, they are so much in favour of this that I too, Mr Andria, was delayed in my plane journey to Strasbourg. Why is that? Because I had to stall hundreds of pensioners – doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers – who, having learned of this report, wanted to leave immediately for developing countries to offer their services to help them, free of charge, with no remuneration, in the hope that this document would support, encourage and assist those elderly people and pensioners who so wish to continue to be useful after their retirement in the many developing countries. It was very difficult to dissuade them and I hope that, next time, they will have reason to applaud the European Parliament because it accepts their help.

Political group: PPE-DE
To draft a report on the Annual Report on equal opportunities for women and men in the European Union 2000, which the Commission has submitted to us on an annual basis since 1996, could effectively be seen to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. But to enable us to prepare properly for the future, we must be familiar with the past and our history. That is why our report on the report from the Commission does indeed have a purpose. As you would expect, I voted in favour of this report, despite the fact that I would have preferred to have some of my amendments approved by the rapporteur and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, in order to set the record straight. Everyone in the House knows that, in the area of equal treatment and opportunities for women and men, nothing is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But in this area, we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater either. We have an acquis communautaire in the area of equal treatment and opportunities and we, as well as the Commission, are saying loudly and clearly that the adoption of this acquis by the candidate countries is a condition sine qua non for their accession to the European Union. (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure) - Kindermann report (A-0092/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I respect the wishes of the House to go ahead and vote on the Rocard report nevertheless, even though the rapporteur himself did indeed request a broader basis for his report. * * * Amendment 1:

Political group: PSE
The VVD delegation, which attaches importance to European action in the areas of immigration and employment opportunities, will be voting in favour of the Moraes Report. It will not, however, be voting in favour of all the amendments that have been tabled, some of which violate the subsidiarity principle, one example of this being European interference in local elections.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in Germany there is a sea shanty which begins with the words: 'We were lying off Madagascar and had the plague on board'. Looking at the state of the country at present, you have the feeling that the whole island of Madagascar has the plague on board. Not only is the humanitarian and economic situation at least as catastrophic as described in the motion before us; it is also mired in a bloody civil war and power struggle which threaten to split the country. To make matters worse, floods have hit Madagascar in recent days. Since yesterday, there has been massive flooding in Madagascar. It really does seem as if the country has plague on all sides at once. That is why we have an urgent humanitarian duty towards Madagascar, an ancient kingdom with a rich history, immense cultural diversity, and a natural beauty which is unique in the world. I think that firstly, we should supply emergency relief to the flood victims and, secondly, take immediate action to alleviate the critical shortage of medicines. Thirdly, we have a duty to provide help for economic reconstruction following the wholesale collapse of its industry, and finally, Mr President, we have a duty to mediate in this civil war and above all to support the efforts of Senegal's President Wade within the African context.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am probably going to be the only person here tonight with my position on this particular report. This report is viewed with extreme concern, regardless of what the rapporteur has said with regard to the United Kingdom. It will have an adverse effect on our agriculture, our farmers and our fishermen. Where I come from in Northern Ireland the rural community is falling apart. To put any added burden on it at this moment in time is quite wrong. I want to make it very clear from the outset that I, my delegation, and those I represent are totally in favour of improvement to the highest possible standards. I will support those higher standards. But I have a problem when we impose from on high purist-type ideas on those who cannot defend themselves. That is what I oppose. I am totally opposed to trying to impose this on off-road vehicles, be they vehicles that are used on farms, or the many other vehicles used in quarries or elsewhere. If we have to, let us set standards somewhere down the road longer-term. Let us work towards that as technology develops, but to sit here and say that we can impose this from this European Parliament is totally unacceptable. If you want to know why Europe is unpopular in many areas of the European Union, just look at this type of proposal. What do the people say? They say 'Oh, there is Big Brother Brussels telling us what to do again'. Why do we not use common sense? Why do we not use our own initiative and not have the European Union hurting its own citizens while the rest of the world merely goes on its way destroying the environment? We have seen from Johannesburg and from Kyoto and elsewhere that they do not pay a jot of attention to what we say. I understand that off-road vehicles account for about 8.5% of the diesel vehicles in the European Union. Commissioner, it is within your and the Council's powers to at least take a balanced position on this and to achieve the aim over a longer term so that we do not hurt a lot of people on the way. That is what I support. I will certainly be voting against this recommendation tomorrow. I, along with the people I represent, will take great delight in voting against it. I hope it is defeated because then in the longer term you will come back with a proposal that represents the common sense view of everyone in this European Union, and not just those with purist ideals who do not have to face the consequences of imposing their ideals on others.

Political group: PPE-DE
I can only recommend that this text be adopted, which is the product of a long and difficult conciliation process between the Council, the Commission and Parliament. This favourable vote is of capital importance as it concerns the health and safety of some 7 million workers in Europe. Workers in the transport sector and offshore workers, sea fishermen and doctors in training will at last be entitled to benefit from European working hours regulations. As a French member of the Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, at second reading, I supported Parliament’s position which, in particular, provided for a four-year transition period for doctors in training, with a maximum working week of 54 hours, over a four month reference period. The conciliation process produced an agreement whereby doctors in training will be covered by the directive, as far as its scope of application – a maximum 48-hour working week over a four-month reference period – is concerned, after a period of nine years. The nine-year period is to be subdivided as follows: a four-year transposition period and a five-year transition period. In the first three years of the transition period, the number of weekly working hours shall not exceed 58, or 56 during the last two years. For some States, however, this sort of nine-year period will not be sufficient to carry out the necessary adjustments. These States may therefore be permitted an additional period of two years. The Commission will make a statement on the notification of the relevant Member State, after consulting employers and workers at European level, as well as representatives of the Member States. The notification, the opinion of the Commission and, if this opinion is not acted upon, the Member State’s justification, shall be published in the OJ and sent to the European Parliament. If there are specific problems, then the two-year period may be extended for a further year, but the Member State must incorporate the procedure in full. The maximum number of weekly working hours may not then exceed 52.

Political group: PSE
In assessing the Directive on the own funds of banks, a number of conflicting interests have to be carefully weighed against each other. Those in favour of the directive can legitimately demand that their interests be protected, and mediation is required if a fair regulations are to be devised. It is, in the first place, savers who could profit from harmonised EU-wide regulation because their investments would be protected against losses in accordance with identical criteria. On the other side of the argument are the SMEs, which fear that regulation would make it difficult for them to raise credit because they would not be able to compete with the guarantees which large companies are able to provide. As a result, there might be job losses in SMEs. A second conflict of interests arises from the fact that, on the one hand, a fairly long transitional period is required in order to provide as many banks as possible, especially smaller institutions, with the opportunity to implement the necessary new regulations in their internal operations. On the other hand, a delay in implementing the regulations favours American banks, which profit from the current set of regulations and are able to undercut European banks in Europe. We must not allow our companies to be disadvantaged in this way, but without playing large European companies, powerful as they are, off against smaller ones, to the detriment of the latter. We support the demand for a solution to be found to the conflict between the United States and the EU, produced by the discriminatory Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation. All in all, it may be said that the demand for European harmonisation is legitimate and that the latter would bring benefits to all sides in terms of security and fairness. However, no one side ought, in the process, to be afforded an advantage at the expense of the others.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I greatly welcome the Commission's objective of again giving the EU a leading role in the field of life sciences and biotechnology. However, the proposed strategy lags far behind expectations. I would therefore like to thank Mrs Damião very much for her comprehensive report which clarifies the Commission's strategy document in many respects. Europe must take on a pro-active role once again if it is not to lose ground in this sophisticated area of technology. This applies especially to 'green' genetic engineering – in other words, to agriculture. A prerequisite is the establishment of an effective, predictable and stable legal framework, both for agriculture and for the biotech industry in Europe. This framework must comply, in particular, with WTO rules and safeguard the coexistence of all forms of agricultural production. The removal of the de facto moratorium for product approvals is the precondition for more planning security for companies and the agricultural sector. The moratorium is especially harmful to innovative SMEs in Europe and conflicts with the Lisbon objectives. Within the Commission, and within the European institutions, a targeted European policy to promote a ‘B-Europe’ policy must be promoted. Based on the successful concept of eEurope, these same priorities could be pursued on an overarching basis by several of the Commission's Directorates-General. Further key points include: support for the development of bioclusters and other models for technological transfer, easier access to risk capital, especially for start-ups and SMEs in biotech research, the introduction of a European patent, and a transparent and scientifically based information policy on the part of the authorities, companies and the scientific establishment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to begin by joining those who congratulated the rapporteur on this work. The European Union is a system based on law. It must therefore have a system of courts to enforce that law. Furthermore, if the courts cannot deal appropriately and expeditiously with the legal workload placed on them, what happens, as Madame Palacio Vallelersundi has already pointed out, is that justice delayed becomes, as we know, justice denied. The evidence of the court is that that is happening now and it points to steps which can be taken now to alleviate the problem. However, as Mr Marinho has pointed out, more is necessary, but that has to wait for the IGC, In my own country, mythology tells of the teeming hordes of faceless Brussels bureaucrats but it never mentions the number of European judges. There are less than three dozen at the apex of the European judicial order – hardly an overload given the responsibility of their tasks at the heart of the European legal system. The extent of their importance can be seen in the political implications of the delay in resolving the outstanding Anglo/French dispute over British beef which has caused such anger in my country and such frustration with the workings of the Union’s disputes resolution procedures. This has been compounded, so some who advise me believe, by the Rules of Procedure in the French courts which make it well nigh impossible for non-French nationals to proceed against the French Government. Certainly it is perceived de facto to be impossible. This contrasts most unfavourably with the United Kingdom courts where Spanish fishermen successfully brought an action against the United Kingdom Government in circumstances which were very comparable. What is happening in France, Mr President, appears prima facie to be a case of discrimination against other EU nationals on grounds of nationality and as such to be in breach of the Treaties. I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner, who was kind enough to make some comments about my remarks in the previous debate, to look into this and to report back to Parliament and to me their findings. I would be grateful if the Commissioner could confirm in his final remarks that he will do this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was in Egypt at exactly the time when these events took place. I saw that the situation was serious, but that, as you said, the Egyptian authorities were making a huge effort. Nonetheless, I should like to ask whether we perhaps need systematic monitoring of the situation of minorities throughout the Mediterranean, i.e. for the Barcelona process, especially the situation of the Christian minorities living in the Mediterranean, some of whom are in a far worse situation in other countries than in Egypt.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group is very much aware of the importance of the EU-Mexico free trade partnership agreement to both partners and backs the rapporteur's initiative on most points. Mexico is the European Union's most important trading partner in Latin America after Brazil, and I am particularly proud that Europe has reached a result that goes beyond NAFTA privileges in a number of areas which are good for Europe but also good for Mexico. We consider this agreement a milestone in future relations with Latin American countries. In the context of today's debate, the European Liberals would like particularly to stress the importance of the standard human rights clause in this agreement, especially respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights. We would like to underline how vital it is to monitor the human rights situation in Mexico as I have seen with my own eyes. In this context I find the rapporteur's proposal to proceed to a reform of Articles 39 and 59 of the global agreement judicious. A side agreement on cooperation on human rights is to be envisaged. Our main hope is that the opening up of the Mexican economy will contribute towards economic and social development in Chiapas. We declare our willingness to start this process and I hope that the march of Marcos on Mexico City will mean a breakthrough in peace. It is now up to President Fox to make what he promised the European Parliament delegation during his campaign come true. I will follow it closely.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Johannesburg meeting – as has been said – is the third great summit aimed at creating an international strategy to combat poverty. The first was Monterrey, on development funding, with mediocre results, and the second was Rome, on food, which yielded no real results. The final opportunity is this Johannesburg meeting, on sustainable development, which, as well as achieving commitments on this issue, must translate into concrete measures what was done at the previous ones and, as the Commissioner has said, from a global point of view. There are therefore great hopes in this summit and above all the European Union has an enormous responsibility. To the failure of Rome we must add the revision of the objectives agreed in 1996, on halving world hunger by 2015. It has already been acknowledged that this objective is not going to be achieved since there is not the sufficient political will to make the necessary efforts. I hope that we will achieve some improvements during this Danish Presidency, given the sensitivity it has. We cannot afford more failures, above all the developing world, and this is a question of survival. We cannot hold summit after summit without results. We must therefore make very practical and realistic proposals which we want to communicate to the Commission and the Council: a code of conduct to guarantee food, based on the belief that food is a fundamental human right, and an emergency plan to deal with the famines and food shortages currently affecting 14 million people in Africa. These are practical measures in relation to which the Council and the Commission must achieve a worldwide commitment. I agree with the rest of the measures highlighted in the resolution, in particular the considerations of the Community budget and the EDF, greater coordination between bilateral and multilateral donors, the importance of microcredits and of the creation of an alliance against hunger and poverty. The fact that the Union and its Member States are the main donors of aid allows the European Union’s representatives to take the lead in making this summit a success, a success which is not merely something which this Parliament wants to see, but which is a commitment of the European Heads of State and Government in accordance with the conclusions of the Seville European Council. We fervently hope that the Union’s representatives will return from Johannesburg with concrete commitments and action plans and we will ask them to give us an account of the summit. I am very happy to hear that the Commissioner is going to present us with a very specific communication on an action plan to combat poverty. We anxiously await that communication.

Political group: PSE
The Statute for Members of the European Parliament has for years been the subject of two debates along completely opposite lines. One, in which I have joined, is about the way in which we can call a halt to the financial privileges that cause the electorate to regard MEPs in a suspicious light. The other is about the way in which membership of this House can be made more attractive by higher salaries, lower taxes and the highest level of Member protection against legal cases. I have always been in favour of a uniform salary for all MEPs, provided that this salary is significantly lower than that in France, England and particularly Germany and Italy. This uniform salary must remain subject to the national, regional and local taxes in the Member State of residence, as is the case for uniform salaries received by people working for international companies in different countries. Guaranteeing the same net income by extremely low European taxes is a completely superfluous privilege for MEPs. In addition, immunity must only protect freedom of speech of those elected and not lead to impunity in other matters. The EU's enlargement must not affect political diversity. The allocation of ever fewer seats in this House to each Member State prevents smaller movements from being represented. Unlike some other Dutch people, I have only ever seen a statute as a means to an end, never the main aim. Since the final document serves the opposite from what I have upheld, I am unable to give it my support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The importance of renewable energy and increasing its use in Europe are at the basis of the measure we are examining at second reading. I would like to reiterate, on this occasion, my satisfaction at the united effort that sets the important figure of 12% as the target for the share of the European electricity market produced from renewable sources which also benefit the environment to be reached by 2010: we know how topical these issues are, especially in relation to climate change. This means that the ‘white gold’, the water used in mountainous areas of Europe to generate hydroelectric power, will clearly acquire greater value as a fundamental resource for the mountain economy. I am pleased that, as recorded in the Minutes, some of the improvements I suggested figure decisively in the text. This will make it possible – a substantial, tangible example, albeit on a small scale – for my Valle d’Aosta, an Alpine region par excellence, to focus on and invest in the hydroelectric sector, after being deprived for 40 years of a great asset in terms of the wealth of the local economy by the nationalisation and monopoly of the electricity sector in Italy, a situation which is only now being remedied thanks to the European impetus, which is opening the doors once again for regional competences granted, in the case of my Valle d’Aosta, by the Statute of autonomy. In this sense, it is a good thing that the European Union is attaching due importance to that – by definition – renewable source, hydroelectric power, providing security and incentive mechanisms on the market which will certainly benefit the mountainous areas as well, particularly those where the electricity companies are directly managed by the local communities.

Political group: ELDR