GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Corbett warmly on something which I am tempted to refer to as a magnus opus, as well as Mr Inglewood on his contribution to the same. These reports seem to codify nearly everything we have recently experienced in Parliament. They also contribute to the development of the European constitution. I believe that in this respect, we should not underestimate the importance of this matter as a whole. The Committee on Budgets has tabled fifteen amendments, not to this report, of course, but to the issue underlying this report. Ultimately, this is about one thing and one thing only: this Parliament mainly has a traditional power, namely a budgetary power. We, together with the Council, make up the budgetary authority. It strikes me time and again that many people do not always realise this. On occasions, they ask the Commission questions about issues on which we ourselves have to decide. This decision-making power also brings with it a certain responsibility which is expressed in two ways. Firstly, in the work of the committee itself, of course, but secondly, in the cooperation with the other committees. An important part of these amendments are about this cooperation with other committees. They aim to let this cooperation run as smoothly, efficiently and even-handedly as possible. Secondly, this, in turn, means that everyone who asks a question or makes a decision, must try to produce a financial memorandum, so that they have an insight into the financial side and can thus give substance to our extremely important competence in the field of finances. A competence which we hope will be extended to include areas where it does not exist.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the desperate situation at Fréthun, which I have also visited, demands a response on two fronts. The rail-freight operators and dependent businesses want a response which concentrates on the immediate and long-standing need for sufficient security to keep the freight moving. They are perfectly justified. Businesses should not be the fall-guys of government failure to cope with asylum-seekers. Businesses need fences at Fréthun, but that is also crucial to stop migrants dying. That is the responsibility of the SNCF and French government. I am shocked that the Socialist Group refused to put that in the motion. I call on them, especially British Labour MEPs, to back Amendment No 2 on this point. Amendment No 6 by the Socialist Group is hopelessly weak, letting governments off the hook. Businesses adversely affected also need finance and they need immediate support and compensation from the two governments. I will also be shocked if Labour MEPs vote against that. Amendment No 1 is an Group amendment, which calls for the strengthening of the current inadequate intervention powers of the Commission to clear obstructions to the free movement of goods. I am told the Conservatives are reluctant to support this, but I hope it is not true. The second response required in the Calais area is to address the asylum question in a humane and practical way. My group cannot support Amendment No 5 by the Socialist Group because it attributes the situation at Fréthun purely to pressure people feel to migrate from their home countries. Obviously that is the broad context, which is why the resolution in a paragraph I drafted says the long-term solution must be found in a concerted, European asylum policy. There is also stress on the need for a sensitive humanitarian approach. In the immediate future, the British and French governments must reach a practical agreement to process asylum claims on-site at the Sangatte centre, not close it – that would be counterproductive. But the Socialist Group amendment, probably deliberately, ignores the responsibility of the SNCF and the government to deal with the asylum pressures. This is unacceptable. The rail-freight operators are on the brink of collapse. Eight thousand workers could be out of a job. I urge support for the motion and for Amendments Nos 1 to 4.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your reply, but I would like to say very briefly that, now, as the EU is enlarging to the east in accordance with a very tight timetable, and they have been transporting horses from the Baltic countries, among others, into the EU area on journeys of up to a hundred hours long, I think it is quite odd that at the same time we are calling on applicant countries to adhere very closely to the guidelines and legal provisions. In our own territory, however, we allow such violations that – as has been seen in public – are simply inhumane, considering we are supposed to be a civilised western Europe. I would like to highlight this and ask what sort of timetable is now in place for real action, taking into account the fact that we have to put our own house in order before new Member States join the EU?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe a directive on supplementary retirement provision businesses should have been established to provide a degree of social protection. The European Union does not have such a mandate however. Consequently, this report forms part of the work towards the objective of creating an internal market for financial services. This is absolutely clear. Above all, this report will allow supplementary retirement provision institutions in Britain and elsewhere to benefit from their position and offer cross-border services. We voted against this report at the first reading at the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The document certainly sought to correct the shortcomings concerning social obligations but it made investment risks worse. The common position of the Council better safeguards the prudential requirements for investment, but it does not meet Parliament’s demands on social issues. We have called for this common position to be rejected. We think that this report must be reconsidered in the context of the serious crisis affecting the stock markets at present. This is affecting pension funds. It poses a risk to the level of benefits and is causing contributions to be increased. Confidence in these pension fund systems will not be restored without strict management rules and mutual insurance structures for the guarantees. It is also necessary for these structures to be covered by European collective conventions between social partners. I would like to say that Mr Karas has worked very hard on this report and has ensured that the text is balanced. At the end of the day, however, we believe the amendments have a limited scope. This is down to the agreements between the different components of the political groups and what the Council deems to be acceptable to avoid conciliation. The report is an improvement on the common position, and the amendment proposed by the Group of the strengthens the prudential requirements for investment. Nevertheless, the fundamental and essential slant of the text remains.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Huge discrepancies between the rich and poor in the world encourage migration, which only solves the problem for a small number of people and not for humanity as a whole. It is often the best educated and the most privileged who manage to enter Europe, often at the expense of useful roles they could be playing in their countries of origin. Such individual solutions, however, are necessary to those whose only chance of survival is to flee from war and suppression. It is not acceptable to send people to their deaths by establishing quota and to refuse access to others. Neither is it justifiable to send people back before the problem in their country of origin has been solved. Moreover, some refugees will want to stay on because their children and grandchildren have meanwhile been raised in the new country of residence. Some EU Member States admit many more refugees than others. It is remarkable that both those in favour of restricting and those in favour of extending the permits have for years been calling for a more centralised and standardised European policy. I can only agree with this if it means that the EU Member States will be more generous in applying minimum standards than those agreed in the Geneva Convention. It is easier to organise and supervise the protection of refugees on a small scale than by a remote bureaucracy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I share Mrs Grossetête’s regret: the construction of Europe must involve the creation of a legal area, and the diligence we have shown in timetabling such a major report for a Friday morning is certainly not reassuring. One great Italian thinker maintains that a society is commonly perceived as such only insofar as it succeeds in establishing rules for itself which are respected by its members. Certainly, the European Community used to be an institutional model with a remarkable history and the Union is so today; within this Community we have established rules for ourselves – and the Member States and the citizens respect them – but Parliament must not shirk its lawful duty to implement and ensure the implementation of the rules of Community law. Moreover, it must draw fresh strength, fresh nourishment, from its tasks. Although we have come a long way and we are making every effort now, I feel that we still have a long way to go. It is our duty to take on board the fact that there is still a great deal to do in the internal market in terms of standardisation, but also and above all, we must realise that there are a great many gaps in the development of the European legal system. It is good to know that the rate of transposition of Community directives into Member States’ legislation stands at 95%, but this is not enough if the failure to apply Community law correctly is the result of bad practice on the part of administrations rather than the failure to assimilate directives. An effective intervention to deal with the national administrations is therefore, in my opinion, necessary, as the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has stressed. This need is all the greater in that those who are in contact with the law and justice are often unfamiliar with the rules of Community law. As the report requests, it is therefore appropriate for candidates to the magistracy and forensic science professions to pay particular attention to the rules which we are developing. I tabled some amendments to Mrs Grossetête’s excellent report in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, prompted by the concern that the legal protection of the citizens we represent is given insufficient recognition and enforcement in the individual countries. Petitions to the Commission and the European Parliament in this context should give us not only food for thought, but also cause for concern. The fact that some national courts hardly ever put preliminary questions to the Court of Justice under Article 234 of the Treaty is a further cause for concern, and the representatives of the Commission should instruct their departments to investigate the reasons for this situation. In short, we must not underestimate the economic and practical difficulties encountered by the citizens in gaining access to Community case law. It may be that we need to adopt a legislative initiative as soon as possible in order to facilitate access to case law in economic terms, perhaps by establishing a support fund.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to address a theme raised by the President-in-Office of the Council which nobody else has yet spoken about but which, for more than one person in this House, is of great moment and significance. The President-in-Office mentioned that the question is being raised as to whether the minimum number of MEPs per state is too low. Is it wrong to retain a relatively low basic membership in a new and enlarging Union? Let us pause and reflect upon this. At the moment, in Britain which is composed of three nations, England, Scotland and Wales Wales is currently represented in this House by five Members. After the new Constitution comes into effect, if it does, the number of Members representing Wales in this House will drop to four. Malta will have five. I do not object at all to Malta having five Members: it is a fine thing for small countries to have proper representation. As a Scot, how could I think otherwise? We must not forget, however, that the principle of degressive proportionality has a deep justification. Degressive proportionality says that every state in this Union must be represented in this House by a sufficient number of MEPs so as fully to express the political diversity of that state. Rightly, therefore, even the 400 000 citizens of Malta should have at least five Members, but perhaps no more. If you insist, rightly, on keeping a maximum ceiling of membership, the upshot of increasing yet further the degressive proportionality threshold above five will be to cut the representation of significant parts of existing Member States. In the debates we had about the competences of the Union, Mr Lamassoure reminded the House of the importance of partner regions, countries like Flanders, Galicia, Euskadi and, indeed, Scotland. These are significant parts in the Union. If you cut their representation you deny them the degressive proportionality on which you rightly insist for countries such as Malta or Cyprus. Do not do that. This is not a trivial point. At the Convention, as a Member representing Scotland, I tried many times to alert colleagues to the significance of entrenching certain aspects of the common fisheries policy that are unacceptable to us. I was not heeded. The upshot of that is that it will be impossible for me, as a strong supporter of this idea of a European Constitution, to persuade my political colleagues in Scotland to back ratification of the text because I now know that on that point it will not be changed. My appeal was neglected. Had I been representing a larger force I might have been heard. What a pity! Do not neglect degressive proportionality for the components of the states of the Union in insisting on it for the states.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am pleased that you knew I was here and that I was going to speak. You know that I do not usually speak too long. I will simply explain the amendments presented by Mr Berenguer, who is unable to attend. These are Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No 2 deals with the possibility of freeing the distributor by means of the return of contributions once the contract has finished. The formula used is contained in section 147 of the Commission guidelines on this subject, which is known as the investment depreciation period. The possibility should exist, in certain circumstances, of freeing the distributor by means of a reintegration of the investment. In other words, the distributor should not be permanently bound by the initial investment of the producer. Amendment No 3 refers to the setting of prices by the producer – the resale price – in certain cases, such as the launch of the product. There are certain cases in which this setting of the resale price can be justified. This is referred to in sections 38 and 39 of the Commission guidelines, but it is clear that, in certain cases, we have to provide flexibility and we are sure that the Commission will understand this. Lastly, Amendment No 4 refers to the protection of producers against pressures applied by the distributor to force them to extend the contract. We are talking about exclusive contracts, sections 131 et seq. Finally, these amendments are simply intended to be a reminder of certain specific aspects, but it is clear that both the guidelines proposed by the Commission and Mrs Thyssen’s report move within boundaries which are reasonable and practical. We hope that the Commission will administer these guidelines in a flexible way so that, on the one hand, market competition is guaranteed and, on the other, we do not create situations of enslavement or limitation of economic activity with regard to the distributors.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the Commission and Commissioner Diamantopoulou heartily on this excellent document, as well as the rapporteur, Mrs Jensen, and all the Members that are flocking into this Chamber from their offices to hear me speak, since they have certainly not come to vote. I would like to thank them because there have never before been so many Members as there are today to hear me. I am infinitely grateful to you all. I must tell you that I dreamt that Mr Berlusconi came into the Chamber at the end of December to report on the work done during this term-in-office in Europe. In the dream, Mr Schultz stood up once again and, turning to Mr Berlusconi, said: ‘Mr Berlusconi, what would you do if you fell ill when travelling in Europe, for example here in France?’ Hearing this, Mr Berlusconi grasped his genitals – as we do in Italy – to ward off danger and then said: ‘Mr dear Mr Schultz, I will go a great deal further than this Commission Charter, which is already significant. When Italy has the Presidency of the Council and I am President-in-Office again in thirteen and a half years’ time, I will endeavour to ensure that all the citizens can travel throughout Europe to receive treatment for all illnesses. Remember, therefore, to vote for this document and to show my satisfaction for this wonderful health Charter’.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am deputising here for Mrs Rühle, the real rapporteur, who unfortunately cannot present her report herself. I would like to concur with the words of Mr Mulder and I too would like to thank Mrs Schreyer for the dedication she has shown over the past five years and for the candour with which she has entered into the debate. Although we belong to the same political family, we have not always agreed with each other. We sometimes held different views, but I have always very much appreciated the way in which we have been able to cooperate with all of Parliament. I would expressly like to thank you for that, Mrs Schreyer. Just a few days before enlargement, we are debating here the implementation of the budget of the European Coal and Steel Community for the budget year ending on 23 July 2002. Let us say it frankly and freely: the ECSC was the first concrete cooperation in Europe between partners who had fought bloody wars against each other three times in the sixty years before. Wars that caused great personal suffering and millions of unnecessary deaths. The stories of my own grandfather who, as a young newly married man, slaved in the trenches of the IJzer near Ypres in the 1914-1918 war and the stories in our family about what happened to him always made a very strong impression on me. They made me a confirmed pacifist, a confirmed supporter of the Flemish Movement and a confirmed European. The cooperation between France and Germany started with cooperation in the field of the two large industrial sectors of the time, coal and steel, and was later expanded to economic cooperation and a European agricultural policy. All in all, this cooperation has ensured that we here in the European Union have lived in peace for sixty years. I think that this point should be made once again most emphatically, especially in the run up to the campaign for the European elections of 10 and 13 June. Mrs Rühle’s report, that is before us today, is not controversial. Nor have any amendments been submitted. The report rightly expresses respect for the virtues of all those who instituted and shaped the ECSC and, therefore, made a very concrete contribution to the unification of Europe. The ECSC is now in liquidation, after operating for fifty years. The Rühle report clearly indicates what measures the Commission and the Court of Auditors will still have to take in the coming months and years. Commissioner, Parliament is counting on this being done with the utmost scrupulousness and that will also be evident from the vote tomorrow afternoon.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report we are discussing today concerns 12 to 15 million people in Europe, that is, between 8% and 10% of European workers. There are three aspects to this modern evil. There is an economic aspect, since according to the report of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions the deterioration in working conditions over the past 10 years is due to the faster working rate and to flexibility in all its forms. There is a sociological aspect, symptomatic of the individualism that is increasingly threatening to take over our society. There is a psychological aspect, which makes harassment particularly odious and can sometimes cause individuals to suffer a breakdown without leaving the slightest trace. At present there is a serious legal vacuum at national level and a wide disparity at European level, which, however, is being counteracted by an increasingly solid body of case law. That is why this report, which is well documented and rigorous, provides a highly encouraging response and sends out a strong signal to the working environment. In paragraph 12, among the envisaged measures, it emphasises the need for more serious dialogue on this subject between all the social partners and the appointment of an independent external mediator, as also advocated in the amendment I tabled, which I regard as an important guarantee of real progress in this field. But it is up to all the European institutions to continue to fight an evil that is now firmly entrenched, as they have been urged to do since the European Social Charter. I therefore welcome the rapporteur's proposal to call on the Commission to publish a Green Paper and to present a Community action programme by next year. On behalf of my group I also support the inclusion of these matters in the Green Paper discussions on corporate social responsibility. We must all support this fight, at our own level, persuaded as we are that society as a whole will enjoy the benefits of balance within society and within individuals.

Political group: PPE-DE
We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the European People’s Party , voted unanimously today against the Commission’s proposal for the amendment of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden regarding the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria, an amendment which would advance the expiry date of the so-called 108% clause whereby a ceiling is imposed on the number of journeys and which would not replace the clause with another form of restriction. This plan devised by the Commission is contrary to the letter and spirit of the provisions that were negotiated at the time of Austria’s accession to the EU. We, for our part, continue to put our faith in the 108% clause; by virtue of our vote on paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the legislative resolution, we have helped to ensure that a consensus of all the European institutions – the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament – will be found at all future stages in the quest for appropriate and sustainable solutions to transport problems in the areas designated as sensitive, areas which include Austria and the Alpine region.

Political group: PPE-DE