GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The approval of the report that the rapporteur has presented to Parliament is heartening, but I cannot say the same for most of the proposals for amendments that have been raised in the House. The principle of the free movement of persons, included in the Treaty of Rome fifty years ago, still encounters many difficulties in its practical implementation. As mentioned in the report, the implementation of the directives on the right of residence of students and retired people (90/364, 90/365 and 93/96) is clearly unsatisfactory, and the same is true for the directive on migrant workers. Workers in ‘atypical’ employment – part-time, short-term, etc. – face residence problems in the host country. In addition, as the rapporteur points out, there are at present millions of third-country nationals residing lawfully in the European Union who often find themselves deprived of the right to free movement and residence. Hence it is essential that the Member States and the Commission take the necessary steps to ensure that the rights of migrant workers are upheld and to improve their situation. With regard to students and retired people too, it is essential to speed up the bureaucratic process and to facilitate the free movement and residence of these citizens of the European Union in any Member State.

Political group: GUE-NGL
By voting in favour of this report, I want to emphasise the need for a directive – based on Article 13 of the EC Treaty – on the equality of women and men in areas other than employment. Vigilance does, however, remain appropriate, and fighting for genuine equality, actual equality between women and men in all areas of economic, social and political life, is a constant battle that must be continued. I will take the example of the scope of the directive. Following significant misgivings and strong resistance on the part of several interest groups, in particular the media sector, the scope of this directive has been ‘watered down’ to only now cover access to, and supply of, goods and services, thus leaving aside other areas such as media and advertising content, education and the decision-making process. At any rate, this proposal must be welcomed as a logical and necessary step towards implementing a policy that will enable sexual discrimination to be fully combated and de facto equality in areas other than employment to be guaranteed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on the way from the Chamber to a meeting of my group yesterday, I was pushed into a corner by a camera team, prevented from continuing on my way, and hurt my back in the process. I would ask you, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that Members can go about their business in this House without interference from representatives of the media.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on Tuesday we awoke in astonishment to a manifestation of a new form of totalitarianism. The Nazism of the past, the Stalinism of yesterday and the Islamic fundamentalism of today all had and have in common a most profound contempt for human beings, who they intend to subject to their plans for world domination. On 11 September, it was not only the freedom but also the dignity of the human being that was attacked in New York and Washington. Those who financed this monstrous attack deliberately sacrificed the lives of their own people with the sole objective of killing the largest number of innocent victims possible, in order to put terror firmly into their opponents’ minds and to rekindle the flame of their supporters’ fanaticism. The resolve shown throughout the world proves that they did not succeed in their main objective, but the subsequent celebrations that took place in various locations show that the second objective could well have been achieved. Faced with this menace, we will naturally be obliged to review our common defence policy, but we should also be working toward the implementation of a new world order that allows Europe, in particular, to be increasingly engaged in the resolution of regional conflicts which, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, and in Africa, do nothing to stem the flow of blood around the world. In order to combat fundamentalist terrorism, we should mainly focus our efforts on increased assistance to all supporters of moderate and tolerant Islam, whether they be in power or in opposition. In Afghanistan, for example, we had no idea of how to respond to the urgent request from Commander Massoud to destroy the hornets’ nest that had developed in his country. We should support his partisans in the Northern Alliance, the sole representatives of the recognised government in Afghanistan, and help them in any way we can to overthrow the barbarous Taliban regime. To combat fundamentalist terrorism we need to completely restructure our own defence mechanisms. Europe does not have the means. The American Congress and Senate have just allocated USD 40 billion to the President of the United States. What amount of money, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, do you have today to demonstrate, other than through fine words, our desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with the American people in this fight that has been forced upon us? Ladies and gentlemen, today everything has changed. I hope that in the adoption of our 2002 draft budget at second reading we will know how to draw the right conclusions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the other speakers who have said that this conciliation procedure went well from Parliament’s point of view, considering the original position we were in. It is essential that matters like these that are so important for human life, such as the quality of blood and its safety, are guaranteed everywhere in Europe. For this reason, I think progress was being made in this matter when the objective was voluntary donation and non-remuneration. It must certainly be considered regrettable that this objective has not been fully realised, although I believe we shall move in this direction in future discussions on the subject. The wording of the conciliation decision also refers to this. As has been said here, blood or its components cannot be commercial goods. This is more about a gift from one person to another and that is the way it should be seen. When in conciliation the greatest worry in the final stages was what level of health professional should carry out a health examination of donors, in my opinion the final outcome was very good indeed. It is important that it should be a health professional: we also have to have confidence in others than those practising the profession of doctor.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Minister’s reply leads me to ask her whether she is aware that, a few weeks ago, a delegation from the European Parliament visited Cuba. During that visit, our colleagues spoke to the Cuban authorities, to the church, to NGOs and to the eleven resident Ambassadors of the countries of the Union. All of them, apart from one Ambassador, agreed that the common position is useless, because it does not contribute to the progress of the Cubans nor to the progress of relations between the European Union and Cuba. Therefore, the Minister, President-in-Office of the Council, must know that that common position has been surpassed, it is obsolete and an anachronism. It is unjust and scandalous that Cuba is the only country in Latin America with which the European Union does not have any cooperation agreement, which puts it in a difficult position – in the disastrous situation it is in at the moment – in terms of helping with the reconstruction of what was destroyed by Hurricane Michelle.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in August the Norwegian freighter Tampa rescued 433 Afghans and four Indonesian crew members from a fishing vessel that had set sail from an Indonesian port. The captain was given permission to proceed to the Indonesian port of Merak, after which he was put under duress by the passengers with threatened suicides and forced to sail towards Australian waters. It is believed that many of these passengers set out from a refugee camp in Pakistan, paying about GBP 4 500 each to be taken illegally to Australia. Apparently the going rate for Germany is GBP 7 000 and Britain, the destiny of choice, is GBP 10 000. The Australian government was perfectly entitled to exercise its sovereign right under the law of the sea to secure its borders by refusing the ship access to Australian waters. Nor do its obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention apply until an asylum seeker is actually present on its territory. The convention itself, introduced before the age of cheap mass jet travel, was a response to the horrors of Nazism and designed to protect the principle of asylum. However, as we are all aware, it is increasingly abused by economic migrants who pass through several safe but poor countries in order to reach rich countries to settle in, where it can lead to people-trafficking, prostitution and a black economy in jobs. In Britain over 100 000 people claimed asylum last year and the great majority of these claims were unfounded. But it remains profitable for criminal people-traffickers to ply their trade because appeals can be strung out for years and, even when unsuccessful, almost no-one is deported back to their country of origin. Australia's problem is also our problem. We need urgently to face up to the need to secure our borders and remove those who enter illegally. There is widespread concern. The EU should urgently develop new policies in this area. We also need to exert severe pressure on those countries which refuse to take back their own nationals. In fact we need to totally renegotiate the 1951 Geneva Convention and think again. I salute Prime Minister Howard of Australia's robust and courageous stance over this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
I entirely support the approach of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs with regard to the area of corporate social responsibility. It seems to me that the social and environmental practices of European companies must be subject to controls similar to those used for competition practices. This is essential if we are to have a real social Europe alongside the internal market, in which competition plays the leading role. This should be regarded as an all-important objective of any future-oriented business policy, and as a guiding principle of European social and economic policies. Ideally, businesses, which are major investors, should have a strategy which goes beyond the horizon of their short-term profits and which would combine economic expansion, social progress and sustainable development. The race for profits in the world economy makes it necessary for us to adopt practical measures to ensure that the social principles laid down at political level do not remain a dead letter. We must therefore demand that it should be possible to monitor the application of this concept of corporate social responsibility, even though, it has to be admitted, it is still somewhat vague. One of the suggestions is that the Commission should submit a proposal, in the context of the appropriate directive, with a view to making it compulsory for businesses to produce social and environmental reports just as they produce financial reports. (Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my group welcomes the publication of the Dehaene, Lord Simon and von Weizsäcker report because it makes the case clearly, and makes it well, to have an IGC that is not confined to the so-called “three Amsterdam leftovers”. We must address wider issues. This IGC, though, will not be so much about broadening the field of responsibility or the competences of the European Union; it will be about structural reform, institutional reform, reform that will make the Union more open, more efficient, more democratic and more transparent. Above all, the IGC will make it capable of functioning and carrying out its responsibilities when it is composed of more than 20 Member States. The three Amsterdam leftovers will be part of the package but they will not be alone. We are winning the argument to have a wider agenda. But even those three leftovers, as Mr Barnier underlined, are not subjects which are easy to handle. For instance, extending the field of qualified majority voting will immediately provoke assorted Eurosceptics and others to say in their Member States that their country is giving up the veto and giving up sovereignty. Indeed, it is the position of one of the largest component parties of the EPP that there should not be an extension of qualified majority voting. Yet if they pause to think for one minute they would soon realise that their own country, every country, probably loses more from the vetoes cast by other countries than they gain in using their own in many areas of European Union responsibility. However, change must come not just for the three Amsterdam leftovers; extension of qualified majority voting, the size of the Commission and the weighting of votes in the Council. Change is necessary for the Court. How will it function if it is going to be composed of nearly 30 members? Change is necessary as regards the size of this Parliament if we are to respect the limit of 700 members laid down in the Treaties at our own request. Something needs to be done to take further the conclusions reached by our Member States that the WEU should now be integrated and its functions, or part of its functions, transferred to the European Union. There is the question of codification and simplification of the Treaties, an issue that this Parliament was first to highlight in the run-up to the Amsterdam negotiations; a task started by Amsterdam but far from complete and which, too, is a point underlined and highlighted in the Dehaene report. In adding new issues like those to the IGC we are not necessarily making it more difficult. Having a wider package might make it easier to reach agreement and easier to ratify in our Member States but I can say, on behalf of my group, that we are willing to have Parliament work closely with the Commission in the spirit that Mr Barnier has just indicated, so that together we can put a balanced package of proposals on the table of the IGC that he, and our representatives to all the meetings of the IGC, can defend: a package that will make the Union fit to work when it has more than 20 Member States.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to thank the President of the Commission and Commissioner Verheugen for having consented to this discussion with us. This is an excellent opportunity for us to embark on a serious and honest debate on the issue of enlargement, and we can also consider together how we can include our citizens in the discussion. Nothing is more important than this. I can understand how the Commission might be rather irritated by the way the Council sometimes approaches the issue of enlargement. The Council has been incapable of proposing a concrete enlargement plan and in this it really has to rally its forces. Neither is it of any benefit if state leaders travel to applicant countries and make hollow promises that membership is just around the corner. This is not serious enlargement work. Obviously, public confidence can be restored, but it will mean that first the entire negotiations process must be made more open. Furthermore, national parliaments must be involved in these discussions, and we now have a good opportunity to say that we too in the European Parliament debate this matter regularly. And then we have the idea that we might organise referenda on the results of enlargement. It is certainly not quite the right time to contemplate this, as we will really have to have the courage to tell people that eight years have passed already since the present applicant countries were invited to join the European Union. Eight years have passed, but hopefully we will be bold enough to tell the people that this process is now far advanced and is irreversible. A referendum in itself is an absolutely splendid way of involving the people in making decisions. I would like to thank Commissioner Verheugen for having had the courage to utter the word. Even in Germany they should, in my opinion, consider dismissing historical fears that referenda might be generally dangerous. Now let us just consider this Charter of Fundamental Rights. At present, a Charter of Fundamental Rights is being drafted, but does it contain one single genuine right of involvement on the part of the ordinary citizen? Why have we not started to discuss pan-European referenda or, for example, the right of citizens’ initiative, which, for example, they have automatically in Switzerland? I can understand why the Swiss do not wish to join the Union before such fundamental rights are also guaranteed to them as citizens joining the European Union. This is a task we can embark on together, so that we can really establish a People’s Europe. It is also the best way to dispel idle fears, because people have to enlighten themselves, they have to talk, and they have to acquire knowledge and information. In other words, people’s direct rights are vitally necessary in general, but in this case I do not think we can start to vote on enlargement now.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we should not be too worried about allowing a Commissioner to bask in the glory of congratulations from the European Parliament. It is a rare occasion so he should enjoy it. As he suggests, we should be looking forward rather than backward now. We should welcome talk of modernisation and reform of the WTO and the recognition that we need seriously to modify the perception that is held elsewhere of the protectionist stance of the industrialised world. A key objective for us must be for all 135 members of the WTO to have a part to play in that process of reform as well as what goes on afterwards. I can confirm that 30 members did not have the capacity or the ability to go to Seattle. My abiding memory was of the sense of exclusion felt by developing countries. They all remained adamant throughout that there was a great deal of post-Uruguay Round unfinished business – on textiles and agriculture in particular – that needed to be addressed. I was heartened by the fact that three-quarters of the WTO members could no longer be ignored. It was they who were able to call a halt. Should we be surprised that they wanted to do that on the grounds that they have only 0.4% of the share of world trade? There are choices: either we allow globalisation to roll on without guidance or we rein it in to ensure that it brings benefits to all. We have an opportunity to address the concerns raised in Seattle. That means identifying the problems and then acting. Of course, we did have the difficulty of the 135-page draft you took with you to Seattle, upon which you have no broad agreement, so it was hardly surprising that difficulties were encountered. At the end of the week, the developing countries were simply not prepared to accept a 'done deal' made in secret rooms by the big players. Of course we recognise the fact that we need a rules-based system to regulate world trade but let us see more openness, let us see more and better ways of achieving and building global consensus.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for that welcome. This draft regulation on the legal framework within which Eurostat operates is intended to improve comparisons of Member States' gross domestic products by making them more complete and more reliable. As such it is one that we can all support. There are, though, two aspects of it to which I would now like to draw attention. The first thing is that the Council and the Commission are still in dispute about the deadline by which data on aggregate gross national income – please take note that it is no longer called the gross domestic product – has to be forwarded to Eurostat in Luxembourg. This used to be 30 September; the Commission proposed that it should be 15 September, and a majority on the Council had already decided in favour of 22 September. That seems rather like haggling. As rapporteur, I asked myself whether we should go along with this game, but we decided to leave well alone. To add to that, the Commission has attempted, by way of comitology – something that certain Members find intensely fascinating – to change the character of the former committee. We are not joining in this charade either. There is, though, another peculiarity to which I would like to draw your attention. One of the recitals states that the GNI data have to be complete, that is to say, they must include not only the data held by the tax authorities or other official bodies, but also those on undeclared activities. I was then curious enough to ask how the Member States measure such undeclared activities as prostitution, for example. It appears that there is a rule of thumb for this purpose. In some Member States, it comes to 1%, equal to agriculture's contribution to the GNI; in the candidate Member States, it is estimated at 2%. Work that out if you can. It also appears that various Member States are very wary about estimating such illegal activities as, for example, the trade in drugs, when returns have to be made to Eurostat. Why is this so? It is known that an ever-increasing share of the EU's own resources is dependent on the gross domestic product. It therefore follows that some Member States do not give the full figures, as then they would have to pay more. On the other hand, they then also have to pay in dribs and drabs, that is to say, by underestimating their GNI. Then, of course, they would have problems complying with the Maastricht criteria. I know that the President-in-Office of the Council has spoken for too long, but I wanted to keep you informed, just so that you know what you are about to vote on. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission proposes that the existing regulation be extended. According to the regulation, the Commission is obliged to prepare an annual evaluation for Parliament and the Council, something it has not done. However, the programme must not be halted under any circumstances; that would be quite wrong. It is important that the programme should be extended, but not before we have seen the evaluations. The Commission promised that we would have the evaluations in March, then in April and then in May. So where have they got to? An independent evaluation is needed for otherwise we have no guarantees that the money has been spent properly. The purpose of the evaluation is, of course, to improve the future programmes. Everything concerning development aid, including the rehabilitation of refugees, ought to fall within the remit of the Directorate-General for Development. It is this Directorate-General which has the expertise and it should therefore also have the responsibility. The Court of Auditors has also criticised the lack of clarity in the way the different initiatives are related to one other. It is indefensible and damaging to the programme that no effort is being made to introduce coherence. I am glad that there is support, especially in the Committee on Budgetary Control, for my amendment to the effect that the programme should only be extended once the Commission has fulfilled its part of the agreement and submitted annual reports and evaluations. Without this amendment, the Commission could get away with not having submitted a single evaluation report since the regulation came into force in 1997. I have also noted that my dear friend, Mr Dell'Alba, has had his grumbles printed as an appendix to my opinion. However, he is only speaking for himself. At any rate, he had no backing in the Committee, since he was the only one to vote against the conclusions.

Political group: PSE