GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, honourable Members, as a member of parliament from one of the regions affected by the floods, I am very grateful that this debate is being held here today. Here we are, worrying about how to get money to the victims. That shows that, as a community, the European Union basically functions on the principle of solidarity. I should also like to make a point of thanking Commission President Prodi for having visited the damaged regions in person. His visit clearly demonstrated that the European Union is alive and well and ready to help and did much to raise the stock of the European Union. The local citizens saw that Europe is a dynamic force for help. I visited some of the damaged areas last week in preparation for today's debate and spoke to citizens and those in charge. The devastation is immense and the people are in deep despair. But they draw hope for a new beginning from the overwhelming sense of solidarity already shown in Germany and from the support coming in from further afield, including from the European Union, because they cannot cope with these problems alone. The bottom line – I have been told time and again – is that money is needed, and needed fast. Apart from replacing personal property lost, we need, first and foremost, to ensure that infrastructures are restored as quickly as possible, so as to minimise the losses to business. Apart from cheap loans, which the Commissioner has already mentioned, I think we need to do more to ensure the money flows quickly. One way would be to provide funds from the supplementary budget or from the disaster fund which has already been discussed here today. This money needs to be provided in the short term. The second way of providing funds is through the Structural Funds. I think both channels are important and are the right approach. However, in the case of the Structural Funds, we need to bear in mind that, under current legislation, the Structural Funds can only be implemented if there is 50% cofinancing. This cofinancing is entered in the countries' budgets in annual tranches and the corresponding funds are then earmarked. Additional funds cannot be provided in the short term. Which is why using the Structural Funds only makes sense if cofinancing is altered. What we need is a reduction, and I do not mean by a couple of percentage points; we need a drastic reduction just for this period, i.e. while funds are being used to repair the damage. Nonetheless, the question of providing more money from the Structural Funds over coming years needs to be reviewed, as Mrs Krehl has already said. I think that if we take this on board, we shall have a huge opportunity to help people and win their confidence in the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the aim of the report on which we are about to vote is to strengthen legislation governing the situation of women in the EU. Such legislation has an enormous impact, in terms of ensuring that the fundamental rights of women are upheld and women are encouraged to achieve their full potential. This must apply not only to women but also to families, children and, consequently, to the future of our European societies. While it is true, as Mrs Fraisse has just stated, that significant progress has been made in terms of reducing disparities, much remains to be done if we are to achieve the objectives set by the EU in this area. I should like to mention two significant commitments made in Lisbon: to reach a 60% employment rate among women in the EU by 2010; and to ensure that by 2010 at least 90% of children between three years old and mandatory school age are provided with proper child care. In this regard, I deplore the fact that we do not have a common social policy, the absence of which results in delays, which are sometimes substantial, in adopting certain directive proposals. I refer, inter alia, to those based on Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which could prohibit for the first time any act of discrimination based on gender outside the job market, such as access to goods and services or the supply of these. We, consequently, have no hesitation in endorsing Mrs Bastos’s excellent report, which would enable us to take the measures needed to ensure reconciliation of professional and family life. It therefore appears that we could introduce a directive, as we did for parental leave, in the next few years. In actual fact, whereas the concept of reconciling family and professional life has been around at European level for some time, this has not always been the case in practice, especially among companies, who often disregard this issue. I therefore believe, Mr President, that we must support Mrs Bastos’s report. I should like to add that today we are fulfilling a dream, since certain Members who have sat in this House for some time are aware that the words ‘family’ and ‘child’, along with the concept of reconciling working life and family life, were taboo in this House ten years ago. We must rejoice in this debate held today on this 8 March.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order. This issue relates to the Irish referendum. I indicated that quite clearly, so it would be extremely unfair to discuss the Irish referendum and not to allow speakers to put both sides of the argument on this issue. On this occasion it is crucial.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mrs Junker for her work on this report. This is a very important issue and Mrs Junker deserves our congratulations. I have three concerns; firstly, it is quite clear – and you have just reminded us, Commissioner – that the countries committed to Cairo have not met their obligations: 45% in the year 2000 is inadequate; secondly, Mr Bush’s reluctance to grant any more money to people dealing with issues of this nature; and thirdly, enlargement, as certain EU countries do not wish to offer women sufficient help with birth control, which was one of the issues at stake in Cairo. We must not forget that what we had before Cairo, in 1994, was management and control of the population; since then, we have had the concept of birth control and control of our own bodies, which is substantially different. In view of these three concerns, what I propose – and have proposed to the Commission – is a framework agreement. We must coordinate our efforts. If I have understood you rightly, Commissioner, your only wish is to support this report and these projects. Should we not, however, be just a little more assertive and proactive? In other words, should we not take the measures that are needed to actually achieve the Cairo objectives? I said I have three concerns, but I could add a fourth. NGOs are very anxious to see how universal access to care, of which Mrs Junker has just reminded us, is going to work within the balance of public and private finance. If this balance is not maintained and if public space – in other words, universal access to care and to birth control resources – is not guaranteed, then we will be in even deeper trouble. I therefore feel that the EU should make clear commitments in this regard. IN THE CHAIR: MRS CEDERSCHIÖLDVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in Nordic fashion I am not one to offer undeserved praise, but this time I am happy to read a progressive report with the exact ingredients mentioned by Mrs Gröner, i.e. the rights of young men and women to return to working life after parental leave. I think this is excellent. One of the key issues is the new regulations on discrimination against women, namely the right to return to work after parental leave. According to the proposal, an employee or public sector worker is entitled to have their old job back after parental leave, or an equivalent job on terms which are at least as good. At the same time, any conduct which treats a woman unfairly and which is linked directly or indirectly to pregnancy, motherhood or reconciling family and working life should be forbidden and should constitute direct discrimination. I have an example from the municipality of Oravais, where I spend the summer. Here, a permanent employee was forced to resign so that the employment of the person standing in for them could be terminated. Is this not forbidden, as it is a case of direct discrimination and also a breach of the provision concerning the right to return to work? The conduct of this municipality is certainly a breach of the future provisions. The example shows the need for the new directives. It is important that we have regulations which prevent conduct that discriminates against young women in leading positions in the private or public sectors. I believe this is one of the key issues, particularly considering how many young women are currently employed in temporary posts. The legislation would provide protection for them. There is one point which I hope we can consider further, namely the issue of organisations whose members belong to a particular profession. Where this issue is concerned, I believe we must look at the link between the two fundamental rights which we find in the legislation of many countries, namely freedom of association and the right to protection against discrimination, that is to say the right to equal opportunities. I am thinking, for example, of associations of female lawyers, which are close to my heart and which we must ensure we can maintain.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, on a point of order. I simply wish to say to Mr Dupuis that the matter of the name he has referred to is under negotiation, progress has been made and I hope it will be resolved soon. For the rest, I repeat what I have said once before in this Chamber: our neighbouring State has existed so far only because of the continued moral and material support of Greece. Otherwise Milosevic and company would have broken it up long ago. We should concentrate now on supporting and helping it to survive in this present very difficult situation rather than confuse the issue with matters which are secondary.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to heartily congratulate Mr Langen and will limit myself to just one aspect of a special public provision situation, that is, the cultural dimension in the audio-visual field, in other words public television and radio. I was in favour of the introduction of private-sector television from the very outset, as I still am, whilst being convinced, in the final analysis, that we must work on the assumption that a public-service broadcasting remit is necessary. Two particular aspects must be highlighted here: on the one hand the obligation to provide a service to all, that is, overall popular provision under appropriate conditions, and on the other the obligation to reflect the pluralistic nature of our society. The dual broadcasting system has proved itself. There would be no sense in constantly requiring the public broadcasters to justify every single programme. A balanced programme needs leeway. What is also certain is that we cannot allow taxes and licence fees to finance the creation of a public-service copy of the private-sector service providers. The public media need leeway, but also clarification of their role and standards for fulfilling it. It is in this respect that the communication from the Commission is particularly to be welcomed. It also needs to be made clear, however, that, in the case of services with social welfare in mind, the type of transmission – be it terrestrial or videostreaming – cannot be crucial. What matters are the objectives to be safeguarded, our democratic foundational principles, pluralism and free access to culture and to technological progress. We must of course guarantee the protection of the users, especially of the young. In terms of competition law, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, must restrict itself to watching out for misuse. It must continue to respect and defend the competence of Member States as regards the content of programmes. Regulatory authority must then remain with the Member States, and it is therefore incumbent on them too to determine financial and organisational structures. I welcome the fact the Commission and the Council are endeavouring to come to an arrangement with the Member States about this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, rail transport was once started by private companies who anticipated making a profit by doing so. Their railway lines did not form a coherent network and were mostly inaccessible to other companies with different kinds of trains. Many of those companies went bankrupt or were notable for their poor-quality, frequently interrupted service. When that system failed, State-owned companies came along, and tried to develop a uniform model for their respective countries as far as possible. Rail transport became a core responsibility of the State. We have now reached a phase in which a large-scale uniform European model is aspired to on the one hand, but at the same time a return to the nineteenth century model of individual private companies is being propagated. Those two aims will probably prove difficult to reconcile in practice, and be a constant source of tension. The champions of this model hold up transport companies that have undergone prolific growth in the free market, such as airlines and HGV companies, as an example to the railways, which they see as outmoded. They believe that freedom of competition will lead to growth and make the railways attractive to a broader clientele that has not been using them up to now. Others fear that liberalisation will only lead to a separation between profitable and loss-making activities and to cutbacks in infrastructure, service and staff, resulting in a deterioration in safety and a rise in fares. In their view, there are more grounds for entrusting long-distance cross-border transport to effective coordination between the existing State companies or to one individual European company than for making room for new private companies; and measures to restrict environmentally unfriendly air and road transport are a good supplement to that. The four reports that are on the agenda today are a product of this major difference of opinion. They all have in common that they envisage an important role for rail transport again in the future, too; and that represents progress in relation to the time when the railways were consigned to the museum of nineteenth century curiosities. Opinion differs widely on the means to achieve this, however. The Jarzembowski report is one of an endless succession of attempts at greater and faster liberalisation, not only for cross-border freight transport, but even for domestic passenger transport. Although I am not a supporter of great power on the part of the Council, I hope that, if a majority in this Parliament supports the rapporteur, the Council will restrict such an attempt this time, too. The Sterckx report places rather less emphasis on a free market, but takes a fairly centralistic view, such that it leaves insufficient scope for national and regional measures. The Ainardi and Savary reports are aimed at quality for society, users and staff, and thus have my support.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Patten, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday in Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians were signing the Agreement to open the road between Gaza and the West Bank, a free passage through Israel connecting the Palestinian territories. This corridor, today, is more than a symbol, it is a reality, fragile but tangible. The way opened up a month ago by the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum finally puts the Oslo and Wye River Accords back on track. This phase is essential for a fair and lasting settlement of the conflict. The Accords recognise the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, as a State, but also guarantee the right of Israel to live in safety within secure and recognised borders. The European Union, itself a unique example of cooperation between nations formerly at war, must serve here as a model and as a catalyst, promoting trade with the region and why not, in the longer term, creating an internal market for the whole of the Near East. Did you not speak, Commissioner Patten, of multiplying, revitalising multilateral cooperation in the region? The objective may seem to be a distant one, but it is one worth pursuing. The European Union must associate itself with this; its vocation and its interest require it to be present wherever peace and democracy must be consolidated.

Political group: ELDR
I am not satisfied with this resolution: it is too long and difficult to understand for the uninitiated, and it is ambiguous on a fundamental issue, the revision procedure. It is not enough to lament the fact that unanimity voting is being preserved and that the European Parliament is not being given power of ratification. Parliament’s demands had to be made a central issue, for the only way of overcoming the unsatisfactory elements in the Convention’s text is precisely to ensure that there is a democratic method of ratification which will allow us to move forward. The rapporteurs and the majority of Parliament have preferred to maintain a rigid and mistaken position on this issue: it is not true that the revision procedure forms a part of the agreement reached by the Convention. This is practically the only issue on which we are asking the Intergovernmental Conference to decide! Why, then, did I decide to vote for this resolution that I do not like? Because a clear message needs to be given at this time: the IGC should not unilaterally reopen the fundamental issues of the text adopted by the Convention and this is what the resolution says. From 4 October onwards, if the IGC decides to reopen the agreements then we will resume the battle over its content.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would echo Mr Dupuis in saying that I do not know how many times we have stood here and discussed human rights violations in China. Unfortunately, the situation appears to be getting worse and worse. Torture is on the increase. There is frequent use of the death penalty. Freedom of expression is limited. The Group is very worried about this and appeals to the Commission and the Council to put increased pressure on China regarding human rights issues. The world cannot look silently on as the world’s most populous country systematically engages in violations against its citizens on a daily basis. We have high hopes that the Swedish Presidency will succeed in bringing about a united approach prior to the Geneva meeting in a month’s time and then, in the course of the meeting, will get a resolution passed concerning China. The Chinese have extremely limited opportunities to practise their religion. Catholics report systematic persecution. Mosques are burned down. In Tibet, the oppression of the Tibetan people, especially of Buddhist monks, continues. Torture, re-education camps and imprisonment under unacceptable conditions are the rule rather than the exception. We know that there are now at least 600 political prisoners in Tibet, most of whom are monks and nuns. Over the last year, we have been able to see, on TV screens throughout the world, the harsh offensive launched by the Chinese régime against the meditation movement Falun Gong since the latter was banned in July 1999. Ever since the ban, tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested. At least 137 people have died in prison. Thousands of cases of torture, atrocities and ill-treatment are also being reported, as is the fact that thousands of people are in work camps and countless individuals have been punished with imprisonment following summary trials. That is completely unacceptable. Falun Gong has been branded an evil sect, but one might well wonder if the reason for the hatred felt towards this peaceful movement does not lie, rather, in the threat it constitutes to the Communist system, because it unites so many people. However, Falun Gong practitioners are entirely peaceful and have no political ambitions other than to be allowed to exercise their basic rights – rights which are laid down in the Chinese constitution and in international agreements signed by China. (Applause) - Laos

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, solving the historic task of the Union will be no easy matter; describing it is a piece of cake. Our most pressing task is to found a European democracy. That is the nub of the discussion and the conflict between us. The biggest obstacle now on the path towards a European democracy – and it needs to be said – is the Council’s claim to power, the claim to power of the national governments, which are not content merely with governing and legislating for Europe, they also want to write its constitution. The Council failed in Nice in its bid to become Europe’s constitution-writer. It was the arrogance of power which gambled with the acceptance of European unification by our citizens. The most important unanswered question in this discussion about European democracy is the position of the Commission. Madam President-in-Office, you spoke about transparency, about being close to the citizens, about dialogue, the spearheading role of parliaments and broad public debate and you meant, you believed, that you were talking about democracy. You were not talking about democracy. Democracy in Europe demands that we talk about the fundamental principles and elements of democracy, about the separation of powers, about the fact that it is unacceptable for national administrations to legislate. Democracy demands that we talk about the principle of legislating in public, about the fact that it is unacceptable for the Council to pass laws behind closed doors and for citizens to be stripped of their right to know who decided what and why and of their right to hold the decision makers to account. Democracy demands that we talk about a catalogue of human rights, about legal validity and about citizens’ access to the Court of Justice, that we talk about a system of checks and balances and about the fact that writing a constitution never has been and never will be the prerogative of governments; it is the original, inalienable prerogative of parliaments. Unless the Council renounces its claim to power and puts these elements of democracy at the top of the agenda, we never shall solve this major historic task. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE