GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to thank the House for rejecting this draft directive. This is consistent with the House’s rejection of an earlier draft directive that led to the one before us today. (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0147/2003) by Diana Wallis, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the Commission's eighteenth annual report on monitoring the application of community law (2000) COM (2001) 309 – C5-0506/2001 – 2001/2197(COS)) and on the Commission's nineteenth annual report on monitoring the application of community law (2001) COM (2002) 324 – C5-0483/2002 – 2001/2197(COS)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0125/2003) by Minerva Melpomeni Malliori, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the health implications of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (2001/2270(INI)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0192/2003) by Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the implementation of macro-financial assistance to third countries (2002/2265(INI)) (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0187/2003) by Herman Schmid, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2003) 176 – C5-0180/2003 – 2003/0068(CNS)) Before the vote on Amendment No 45:

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. – Mr President, could I first of all say on behalf of my committee how much I welcome the remarks by the President-in-Office, which raise the prospect that we might be able to reach agreement on the budget very quickly. I would also like to congratulate the Finnish Presidency on taking us so far. At this moment I can only give two cheers for her statement because I do not understand what she said as regards Heading 4. She said that the Council does not want the ceiling for Heading 4 to be amended permanently. Does that mean therefore that we will continue to operate Heading 4 on an ad hoc basis, that we will use a flexibility clause every year and therefore have a pretence that we have no change to the financial perspective when the reality is of course different? I would advise caution in this case because, as Mr Bourlanges has said, we are dealing with an unpredictable situation in the Balkans, not only in relation to Mr Milosevic but also the death of Mr Tudjman. These events raise questions about the long-term feasibility of the course we are pursuing at the moment. I would like some clarification on that point.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too voted against the Republic of Finland’s and the Republic of Portugal's request for a directive regulating visa applications and border controls because, in effect, it is not within the remit of these States to table such documents in this way. However, it pained me to do so, Mr President, for the issue raised by these States is right and proper, and I wonder why we are waiting to regulate the border control procedures at Europe's frontiers with a directive which would be immediately applicable throughout the European territory. The document stresses the importance of a European regulation too, since Europe is a single entity within its borders. - Frahm Report (A5-0075/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to thank Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines warmly for the effort she has made to write this own-initiative report. I could not agree more that knowledge is the key to competitiveness and economic and social development in Europe, but I certainly do not see eye to eye on all her conclusions. Universities play a vital role when it comes to turning Europe into the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy. It is therefore very important for them to maintain mutual contact and exchange information and experiences. The pre-condition is, however, that they should offer high-quality education in an attempt to create centres of excellence within the academic world. I completely share Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines' view that the mobility of students, lecturers and researchers could be much improved. Administratively, many stumbling blocks could be removed. However, I cannot see the good in the Commission and Member States having to promote the establishment of a European University Seat. Accordingly, it is not clear to me what role a representation of the Member States and of Parliament would be playing in this. Another point, the validity of which passes me by, is the setting up of a separate European cultural university. Language and literature, philosophy and communication are already being taught at existing universities, while special academies cater for the arts. The report points at the need for an intercultural dialogue with the world's other regions. This is all well and good, but it does suggest that the existing universities are completely introspective and maintain no contact with the rest of the world, and this is simply no longer the case. I therefore fear, Mrs Gutiérrez-Cortines, that my group, despite the fact that we agree on certain aspects of the report, will be abstaining from the vote, since it cannot reconcile itself with the two above-mentioned points.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in April 2000 the Commission presented a report on progress in the implementation of the 1994 directive on the institution of a European works council for Community-scale companies. The report has a relatively positive outlook, for today more than a third of the companies affected have implemented these works councils, yet it must be said that recent history surrounding certain redundancy programmes have made this process of informing and possible consultation more necessary than ever. New draft directives have therefore been added to the 1994 text subject of this report. With regard to these drafts, I think that three different courses of action should be taken. Firstly, the inclusion of measures so that, within a reasonable time, the majority of companies involved would have a European works council. From this point of view, the idea of lowering thresholds of employee numbers above which companies are affected does not seem very reasonable. We should in all cases honour the 1994 Directive. The second course of action should consist of proposing a global text that is a combination of different texts, rather than a stack of directives. The third measure should be to guarantee that autonomy and freedom in company management are preserved from the time when these companies can completely fulfil their duty to inform and consult. The report by Mr Menrad, while I appreciate the work contained therein, has not been able to avoid certain pitfalls. It must be said that codetermination, a management technique favoured in Germany but in that country alone, has led him to accept amendments from our fellow Member Mr Harlem Désir, amendments that our group had, upon my initiative, rejected in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I am thinking most notably of the thresholds above which companies are involved and the institution of part vetoes using sanctions in certain cases, which I truly regret. Regarding the Members, it must be said that they demonstrate a degree of stubbornness when they reject, for example with the postal or energy services, the Commission’s proposals with the view that what already exists should be applied, or vice-versa, as is the case here, to rely upon the widely perceived lengthy nature of proceedings to jump the lights when it suits them. In my opinion, competition, the opening up of markets and the creation of an internal market go hand in hand with informing and consulting employees. This is the reason why, with sadness but with certainty, I am going to abstain, if paragraphs 4 and 14 in particular are adopted as they stand. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the facts are well-known. On 24 December, the Angolan court sentenced a correspondent of the Portuguese paper, Expresso, to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of USD 20 000. The journalist had brought to light a corruption scandal in the President’s cabinet. The trial took place behind closed doors and the defendant was only allowed one witness. Another journalist was threatened with his life during a parliamentary debate last month by a member of parliament of the MPLA government party. These are only two examples of a trend in Angola to silence any government critics. Over the past year, more than twenty journalists have been arrested for alleged slander or criminal offences against state security. Their only crime was to criticise what human rights organisations have been denouncing all along, namely the large-scale corruption and disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars, paid by the oil companies to the Angolan Government. Even the British Minister, Peter Hain, conceded this recently. We should ensure that the oil revenue is not used merely to finance the war or to line the pockets of prominent members of government, he told President Dos Santos last month. But, at the same time, we note that Great Britain and also Portugal are continuing to channel military aid to the government. There is indeed a great deal of hypocrisy regarding Angola. On the basis of a report, the human rights organisation Global Witness concluded that the western world is turning a blind eye to the activities of Dos Santos because it is fishing for lucrative oil contracts. I would like to challenge Portugal to deliver proof to the contrary, by making commercial interests subservient to human rights, to which so much lip service is being paid. In my opinion, Angola is a test case. We should, at any rate, judge the Portuguese Presidency on its actions and not on its words. Native Americans in the US – Dineh

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must start by making it abundantly clear, on behalf of my group, that we find this raid unacceptable, and we are of course protesting against the fact that police officers and a public prosecutor from the State Security Court in Ankara have been able to take such action in the first place. We take it for granted that the Turkish Government, in a case such as this, will act in an exemplary way and sort the matter out. It is quite proper that we should be discussing this here this evening, but I think we should avoid making the mistake of playing the game the way the hawks in Turkey expect us to. What is actually going on in Turkey at the moment is that the opponents of the EU within the state apparatus, who continue, regrettably, to wield a great deal of power, are full of fear of Turkey ever joining the European Union, when they will no longer be allowed to do those things that have been permitted to them until now. It is these forces within the apparatus of the Turkish state who have a natural interest in exploiting every opportunity and engage in provocative behaviour as often as possible. On the day in question, 6 May, a meeting had actually been planned between non-governmental organisations, the Turkish foreign minister, and the minister responsible for human rights issues. It was on the afternoon of that day that the raid was carried out. This shows that those forces that actually want to use all available means to create a different mood in Turkey, had deliberately chosen this day to mount an operation that we would regard as unacceptable, with the resultant situation inducing us to hold this evening’s debate, in which Turkey would yet again be the subject of much adverse comment, and we would end up doing a favour for those who do not want to see European democracy in Turkey. The one fact of which we have to take note is that Turkey at present has a government that wants to carry out necessary reforms, and is making the effort to do so; it responded to this raid by saying that everything possible would be done to resolve this case. For this reason, I would like to ask my fellow Members of this House to help and support those in Turkey who are really campaigning for democracy and human rights, and, when faced with provocations such as this, to be very careful in what they do and not allow themselves to be provoked and misused by the wrong side.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the fact that the European Parliament is addressing today this major, sensitive issue concerning the health of millions of people, millions of women in our continent and throughout the world is due, as we all acknowledge, to the determination and sensitivity of Mrs Jöns, whom I too would like to thank from the bottom of my heart. Considering that breast cancer can be cured in 90% of cases if diagnosed early on and properly treated, as is shown, not least, by the figures provided by Mrs Jöns and by current research; considering that high quality breast screening within the framework of a regional or national programme can reduce the breast cancer mortality rate by as much as 35% for women between the ages of 50 and 69, and that, according to scientific studies recorded, the mortality rate can be reduced by 20% for women between 40 and 49 too, every woman should have access to screening, to treatment and to high quality aftercare, irrespective of where they live, their social position, profession or level of education. The main important points of Mrs Jöns’ report are precisely an excellent prevention strategy, rapid treatment and appropriate post-operative care. Thus, the call to the Member States and the Commission – I would like to thank the Commissioner for her words this morning, which were reassuring – to make combating breast cancer a priority in health policy and to develop and implement effective strategies for increasing prevention, with the goal of reducing the average breast cancer mortality rate in the Union by 25% by 2008, is a key point of this report, as is the right for women suffering from breast cancer to be treated by a multidisciplinary team. It is therefore important for the Member States to develop a wide network of certified multidisciplinary breast units which meet specific quality criteria. One last point which I want to stress is the importance of research. The Sixth Framework Programme allocates funds to research: that is all well and good, but we need to insist that these funds for research increase, thanks, not least, to increased commitment from the Member States.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in Item 5 of the Minutes of yesterday’s sitting on the withdrawal of Mr Le Pen’s mandate, there are two half truths in the references to my speech and to that of Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi and two half truths can add up to one untruth. Firstly, the Minutes state that Mr ‘questioned whether the letter from the committee’s chairman truly reflected the opinion of the committee as a whole’. What I said was that the letter read out by the President and sent by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi was not the opinion of the committee. It had not been adopted by the committee and therefore was not its opinion. It is not a question of whether or not it reflected the committee’s opinion: reflecting an opinion is not the same as being an actual opinion. Secondly, the Minutes then state that Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi ‘confirmed that the letter faithfully reflected the committee’s position’. Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi is not here but, if I remember rightly, what she said was something along the lines of it being her opinion of what had taken place in committee, although it had not been adopted by the committee. Although I am aware that I am splitting hairs here, I should like to make it clear that what I said was that it was not the committee’s opinion and that, in some way, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi acknowledged that it was her opinion of what happened in committee. In this way, the two half truths could be turned into two complete truths.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, a majority of the Group of the and the voted against the Karamanou report. This signal could be misinterpreted or even turned against us to score political points. We are not, of course, opposed to equal opportunities policy and we are certainly not against women's participation. We agree with the principles enumerated by Commissioner Diamantopoulou at the end of this morning's debate. We are in favour of mainstreaming measures in business, in public institutions, in education, training and culture. We are in favour of building up political networks and we need European indicators such as benchmarking. We are also in favour of concrete actions and measures being implemented in the EU Member States. We have demonstrated this in countries where and Conservatives are in power. Women are demonstrably holding leading positions in our parties. For example, in Germany, my own party, the CDU, has a woman leader and in the Group of the and the a considerable number of the national delegations are led by women. So there is no doubt that we support the objective of equal opportunities, and this was also apparent from the speeches that my female colleagues and I made this morning. However, the rapporteur, Mrs Karamanou, and her Socialist Group were not prepared to support our amendments rejecting the establishment of quotas throughout Europe. There are various different systems in the EU Member States for ensuring that women are properly represented numerically speaking. And, contrary to what appears in the report, these are not laid down by governments, but by the parties, when they are drawing up their lists. That is the way it should stay – that is what the principle of subsidiarity is all about. So any attempt to make out that my group, because a majority of its Members voted against the Karamanou report, is in some way opposed to balanced participation of men and women in the decision-making process, any such attempt is certainly doomed to failure. Madam President, it is not only necessary for the overall thrust of ideas and initiatives to be right – above all the detail must also be right.

Political group: PPE-DE
I do not want to be a bore, but, as you said I had not put a question, let me ask what response we have had from these countries. Are they interested in such a solution? I am sure you have had talks with some of them. Perhaps you could say something further on the subject.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, let me be quite frank and say that many of us feel ill at ease today. Why? If we were to take ourselves and our resolutions really seriously, then this oral question could not be put, and there would certainly be no resolution deviating from the Members’ Statute adopted on 3 June this year. Another reason why we feel ill at ease is that it seems strange that, four days after the collapse of the Intergovernmental Conference on ‘The future of Europe – a European constitution’, we find ourselves, in a request for urgent debate, calling on the Council to agree on a Members’ Statute, even though it has hitherto not done so or shown any desire to do so. (Muted applause) The constitution would be more important to us than the Statute, although there is no real connection between the two, but we do this nevertheless, and, all the same, the larger groups are tabling a joint motion for a resolution. Why? We do it because a statute for Members of the European Parliament is not about party-political, national, or individual interests or game-playing; on the contrary, the procedure and content should remain a matter of common concern. We do it, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, because we deeply regret the dishonesty, the tactical considerations, the individual election strategies and the false conceptions of our roles that are involved. The fact is that we are not meant to be engaging in dialogue with one another; it is for you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Applause) to what we have adopted as a proposal for our Members’ Statute, and because we want to abandon this shared path. It is because we want to make it clear that it is the Council, which represents the national governments, and not this House, that must bear responsibility for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. That is our final offer; our new message to you is that you must, by 15 January, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though many of us regard the proposal on taxation as contrary to EU law, unjust and essentially wrong, we put forward this motion as a token of goodwill and of our awareness of the problems in the Council. Taking discussions at national level on pensions into account, we are raising the pensionable age by three years. Although a statute should also govern the functions of a Member of this House, we are dividing it and removing the elements of primary law, but that is where it stops, for we too have our dignity, and those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me say on behalf of the European People’s Party and the that this proposal for a directive is another brick in the edifice of European air quality policy. The air quality framework directive is implemented by issuing daughter directives on a series of air pollutants. This is the second such daughter directive and it relates to the limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in the air and the corresponding control and information requirements. The purpose of our proposed amendments is not only to stipulate strict environmental protection requirements but to format these requirements so that they can be transposed and complied with by all Member States. In order to achieve this objective, certain compromises need to be made, especially with regard to our southern Member States. From this point of view, the specifications of the European Commission and the extensive amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection are very demanding. The Finnish Presidency is making a serious effort to make use of the new legal possibilities afforded by the Amsterdam Treaty and to bring this proposal into force after the first reading with the amendments of the European Parliament. We all know how urgent the problem of reducing air pollution is, also with respect to climatic change. As Mrs Breyer has already pointed out, the real aim is to improve health protection for our citizens. On these grounds, I welcome the plan of the Finnish Presidency. But that also means that we in the European Parliament must responsibly create the right conditions. It is precisely for this reason that I am unable to agree with certain proposed amendments adopted by a majority in the Committee on the Environment and tabled mainly by Mrs Breyer and her group, because some are superfluous and do not help to improve the text while others have no place in this proposal for a directive because they do not concern the scope of the proposed directive. It is for this reason that we reject a series of proposed amendments. My proposed amendment of Article 3(2) was adopted by a large majority in committee. In consultations with advisers, our rapporteur, Mrs Breyer, and experts, we again supplemented and tightened up this amendment. This is proposed amendment 22, which I would ask you all to support. I would like to thank Mrs Breyer. She was at pains to find a consensus and it was not easy, but I think that if we confine ourselves to the basic proposed amendments which improve the Commission proposal, and this refers mainly to Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 22, it should be possible to pass this important directive quickly. I imagine, hope and expect that, in its reply, the Commission will support this directive and really pave the way for it to be implemented as quickly as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE