GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
With the Council and the Commission representing the governments, the European Parliament is called upon to embody democracy and express the concerns of the public at large. However, Mr Trentin's draft report is the perfect illustration of the fact that, although Parliament is elected by universal suffrage, the interests that it represents are solely those of employers, and are contrary to those of the Union's working classes. The modifications requested by Parliament's rapporteur will all lead to a deterioration in workers' terms and conditions. The report calls for employment to be more flexible. It recommends what it has the cheek to call 'active ageing', which amounts to making people work for longer and pushing back the retirement age. If it mentions social policy at all, it is to affirm with brutal cynicism that it has to be 'a productive factor'. If it envisages having, for example, a policy of 'lifelong learning', it is to provide employers with a mobile workforce that has the right qualifications to meet their needs. As regards 'restructuring processes' – in fact mass redundancies – it merely, 'promotes preventive consultation of employees'. The only social measure in this report is therefore the obligation to inform workers that they are going to be made redundant! We will therefore be voting against this text, which has been drawn up for, and on behalf of, employers.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In our view, given the particular significance of 1 May, International Labour Day, there is no question of working on that day. As for the rest of the calendar, we do not have any strong views and have not adopted any particular position on it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I am very grateful, Mr President, but I believe the Commissioner should tell us what the truth is: is it what he stated in his answer to Question No 26 – which is that the regulations are in force – or what he has just stated, which is that the regulations are no longer in force? The Commissioner must clarify the situation and say which is true: his previous statement or the one he has just made.

Political group: PSE
My position today in no way prejudges my position on the future European Constitution. In principle, I am in favour of a Constitution but I cannot, at this stage, join with those who state that the Intergovernmental Conference must not significantly change the draft prepared by the Convention. Socially speaking and in terms of the citizens Mr Giscard d'Estaing’s draft is manifestly insufficient. Moreover, a Constitution should not set the economic and political structure of the EU in stone and thus deny the public any real opportunity to change society using its democratic vote. I hope, therefore, that the IGC will make profound changes that will allow me to vote, when the time comes, in favour of the Constitution.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I had requested the floor in relation to the vote on Zimbabwe, when we voted mechanically on 12 amendments presented by the so-called Technical Group of Independent Members, and having noted that in no case have they voted in favour of their amendments, they have systematically forced us to vote. I say this in relation to the Provan report and the reform of the voting system in Parliament. I believe this is an unacceptable way to proceed. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I would like to know why you are presenting us with a report on the implementation of the Packaging Regulations, because we all know well enough that the revised Packaging Regulations have already arrived. My question is whether this is to do with a new strategy. Is it the case that you want in future to leave product policy behind and turn your attention to the torrents of refuse?

Political group: PPE-DE
The Commission has presented another communication on the combating of fraud. It will make it possible to exclude firms that have engaged in fraud from contracts with the Commission. The fact is, however, that that possibility exists already. It is unnecessary to prepare more communications. The Commission has only to use the 1992 directive relating to the award of public contracts, which makes it abundantly clear that it can exclude firms that have submitted false information or evaded tax from participating in the award of public contracts. Why not use this directive? Why not use the existing legislation? I have voted in favour of the Bösch Report because it draws attention to a good example of this obvious scandal. For years, Eurostat has entered into contracts with a firm that has supplied false information. This is shown by a cursory comparison of the figures. The Commission says that it handed the matter over to OLAF as early as 1999. Why, therefore, has nothing happened? The firm, which submits incorrect figures year after year, is now on the Commission’s top-ten list of most frequently used contractors. How can that be the case? The Commission owes us a very good explanation. A patently fraudulent firm earns tremendous amounts of money out of contracts with the Commission. The firm sits over there in Luxembourg and laughs at us, while the Commission issues another fatuous communication. What signal does this send to the people of Europe?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although progress has been made in the negotiations, I certainly do not think that it is enough. We asked for protection for the entire Austrian region, and that has been accepted. The amendment concerning the most polluting lorries – for environmentally-friendly lorries do not exist – has been adopted. That is a conditio sine qua non. Noise aspects have not been taken into consideration. In short, we are left with a raft of problems. I have pointed out before, right through this procedure – first reading, second reading, previous debates – that we are being faced with a problem of a democratic nature, a point also made by my neighbour. It is for this reason that Austria regards the regulation as unacceptable. Austria has consequently noted that, in the next couple of years, partly caused by the accession countries, transport through Austria could well double, if not quadruple. Ultimately, it decided unilaterally to abolish the ecopoints system on 31 December. As this confronts us with the question of what we will do next, I would ask the Commissioner how she sees things developing in the Council on 22 December. After all, if Austria stands by its view, I do not know what we should do with this decision.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, nothing justifies the use of terrorism. Equally importantly, there should be no ambivalence about this evil. But, regrettably, this is not always the case. When the United States justifiably initiates a global campaign against organisations responsible for terrorism and the regimes that sponsor it, it is important for us to remind them that they allied themselves to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when it suited their foreign policy objectives. In addition, condemnation of terrorism rings hollow when they fail to take a strong line against the incidences of state terrorism committed by Israel, which have the potential to create future generations of terrorists in that region. Just as I would criticise the United States, I am not blind to the inconsistency of the EU on these issues – the Council in particular. For example, during the present global fight against terrorism we have, on occasions, turned a blind eye to the shortcomings of the undemocratic regimes we have enlisted to support us. Whether for geopolitical reasons, in the case of Pakistan, or giving precedence to trading interests over human rights, in the case of China, we have at times failed to take a strong and consistent line against countries whose very structures of government are based on instilling fear in their citizens. They flout democratic principles, abuse human rights and ignore the rule of law. Inconsistency and hypocrisy such as this leaves the West in general open to the charge that it is selective in its definition of terrorism and is primarily influenced by the perceived threat to western interests. A global fight against terrorism will be successful only if it is free of inconsistency and hypocrisy in its approach and if it tackles the injustices that feed terrorism in the first place.

Political group: PPE-DE
Europe has often interfered with North West Africa in a negative way. Up until 50 years or so ago, those countries formed the colonial property of France, Spain and Italy, and particularly in Algeria, independence was preceded by a lengthy and devastating war. This past has contributed to the fact that violence and poverty in those countries still play an important role. In Tunisia, an authoritarian state emerges without any right to opposition; in Algeria, the army plays an important role and the large Berber population feel like second-rate citizens; in Morocco, the situation is politically speaking slightly better but many try to join their families who have been in the EU for a long time, and in the Western Sahara, the agreed referendum on independence has still not been held. Much like the USA is separated from a much poorer Mexico by the Rio Grande and a fence, Europe is kept separate from northern Africa by the Mediterranean. Many inhabitants of the Maghreb countries look for Europe’s higher standard of living or have reason to flee an oppressive regime. I concur with the view of the Green-Conservative coalition of rapporteurs that it would be preferable to make an economic migration superfluous by providing incomes and employment in their own countries, but that need not lead to support for the leaders of a unified Maghreb.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on a point of order, I too would like to distance myself along with my colleague, Roger Helmer, from Mr De Rossa's comments regarding the International Criminal Court and the fact that today it became operational in The Hague. The Rome Statute is flawed, as it would allow political mischief against American troops and political leaders. It would make peace and reconciliation much more difficult, as no longer could guerrilla leaders or dictators be given any kind of guarantee or immunity from prosecution after a peace and reconciliation process. It is interesting that only some 70 countries have signed the Rome Statute. Russia and China – and nobody has criticised Russia and China on the other side of the House – have also refused to sign the statute for good reasons. Surely, ad hoc tribunals such as those in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda are a much better solution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I also welcome the progress report from Minister Roche, my fellow conventionnel. It is clear that we are moving on – sharpish – from the fiasco that we had at the summit in Brussels. I trust that it will be possible to reach agreement before 1 May. There are, however, three sets of problematical questions outstanding: the formula for qualified majority voting, the size and shape of the Commission and the scope of QMV. It would be unfortunate if our obsession with those first two great patriotic questions obscured the third – the scope of QMV – which is in some ways more important. The Italian presidency, mainly under pressure from Prime Minister Blair, unfortunately retreated in several ways from the Convention's modest and balanced proposals to extend the scope of QMV and codecision with the Parliament. The Italian so-called 'final compromise package' is not acceptable to the – nor, I suspect, to a majority of this Parliament. Especially objectionable would be a flight from QMV concerning the provisions on social security for migrant workers; the suppression of codecision from the clauses on the framework programme for research and development; the re-insertion of the national veto and the suspension of the legislative rights of this Parliament in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and the unwelcome supplement to the progressive passerelle clauses of a right of veto for any single national parliament – a certain recipe for frustrating the decisions of the European Council and for bringing on the ultimate sclerosis of the European political system. The Irish presidency is quite correct in saying that all Member States must move for the IGC to be able to succeed and none more so than the British Prime Minister, whichever personality that might prove to be. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is interesting to follow Mr Martin as an English speaker and I can assure him that things are certainly not falling apart in the British economy even though my party would like a change of government. A point I want to make with regard to this takeover directive is to bring the argument very firmly back to millions of electors in my country and millions of people who have pension plans and savings that are based upon investments in the stock market. Mrs McCarthy quite rightly reminded us to declare an interest. So let me declare an interest. I have a pension fund from my previous employer. A lot of its value is based on investments in the British stock market and I rely on investment managers to keep my investment safe and to develop it for my future retirement. That, of course, is a major strength, Mr Martin, for the British economy because we have those funds there at a time when our society is growing older and we need to provide those pensions. We do not have an overhang of publicly funded pensions. That is something that everyone in the European Union is going to have to tackle and this takeover directive, in the final form that comes through has to address that issue. The problem with the amendments that we have before us is that, if this goes through, the people who are managing my pension fund will not be able to maximise that value for me. That applies to millions of ordinary individuals working in companies up and down the United Kingdom. It is their future that we are talking about. This is not some abstract concept. It goes to the heart of the British economy and it is something that increasingly will be critical for the future of the European economy as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, excuse my being late, but debates at this time are got through more quickly than during the day. I am going to explain to you the factors which Mrs Lienemann would have liked to have presented to you herself if she had not been detained by other work. The proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, adopted by the European Commission on 22 November 1999 and on a Community Framework for cooperation to promote sustainable urban development, follows on from the ‘European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign’, launched in 1992. The state of the urban environment, in which approximately 80% of the European population resides, is a fundamental topic of concern which has repercussions at local, European and world levels. It has to be said that the thorniest environmental problems at European level basically concern urban areas. They are often closely linked to global environmental challenges, and their impact is such that they directly influence the quality of life for millions of people. A coherent and sustainable approach to urban development policies may, however, significantly improve the quality of life in cities and towns. Indeed, the concept of sustainable development, particularly in the case of cities and towns, is not, and cannot be, limited solely to the environmental aspect, but also embraces social and economic aspects. Europe’s cities and towns are important economic, political and socio-cultural centres. They may also represent a major threat to our natural environment, and the current challenge is to facilitate balanced urban development enabling cities and towns to continue to play an important role in contemporary society, as well as in the society of the future. One major challenge in creating an urban policy is to find the means of pursuing sustainable urban development objectives within the administrative structure of the city. That is why, in agreement with the other institutions, Mrs Lienemann, our rapporteur, has proposed slightly increasing the budget to EUR 14 million in order to promote cooperation in this area between 2001 and 2004. The appropriations would be mainly allocated to networks of towns and cities organised at European level and in order to support their activities in the field of development and the dissemination of good practices where sustainable urban development is concerned.

Political group: PSE
According to paragraph 15 of Mr Stenmarck's report, Parliament regrets that the dispersion of Parliament's staff in three working places remains a major obstacle for improving the allocation of human resources and points out, in particular, that the need to maintain a number of posts in Luxembourg leads to unnecessary duplication in a number of services. Furthermore Parliament hopes, says the report, that the forthcoming enlargement will provide an opportunity to improve the allocation of posts between Brussels and Luxembourg. What is the meaning of this? This paragraph clearly seeks to undermine the Edinburgh Agreement on the location of the seats of the individual European institutions, which stated that the seat of the General Secretariat of the European Parliament was Luxembourg. Parliament has no business, certainly not in a paragraph hidden away in a report on the budget, to call this decision into question either directly or indirectly. The only authority on this matter is, and remains, the European Council and, as far as I know, it is still abiding by its 1992 decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to congratulate Mr Langen, the rapporteur, on his report on the adoption of the multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community, Altener II. A number of people have made critical comments about the nuclear programme in the Community. Fusion power is perhaps technically renewable energy, nevertheless this is not what we are talking about here. This is a report that originated with the Commission proposal in November 1997 which the last Parliament considered at first reading, in the Robles Piquer report, in February. Now with the Treaty of Amsterdam we have moved over to codecision and we are having a second reading here today. The major thrust of the report is the demand for the doubling of the amount of renewable energy to 12% by 2010. This is something we clearly support in the Socialist Group, but I am not entirely sure that commitment is accompanied either by the political resources – which is one of the reasons we are asking for the campaign to encourage and foster renewable energy – or, more importantly, by the financial resources. The amount that is being allocated is far too small in my view and does not add up in terms of achieving a doubling. We have EUR 80 million allocated: EUR 30 million for 1998-99 and EUR 50 million for 2000-2002. It seems to me, firstly, that the amount available is far too little and secondly, if we are expecting a doubling of the amount of renewable energy, there should be a sharp increase in the amount of money being made available over a period of time. In fact, even this may not be allocated given that Amendment No 5 to Article 1(3) (new), actually says that the amount of money might have to be reduced if it is inconsistent with the financial perspective for the period in question. I welcome Amendment No 6 to Article 2(e)(a) (new) about the need to encourage the export of renewable energy technologies from the European Union and to encourage the European Renewable Energies Export Council. In conclusion, a number of short points: renewable energies cannot be shoe-horned into the current thinking of energy suppliers, who are trained to see energy production as always being large scale and costing hundreds or thousands of millions of euros in terms of each project. Many will be small, community-based schemes which will be site-specific, whether using wind, waves, solar power, combined heat and power or even biomass. That means, if we are to encourage lots of small schemes, that we need even more money. Secondly, if we are serious about exports we should also pay some attention to renewable energy sources in which we in the European Union have a technological lead, which is not necessarily the case here. One of which I am aware of is ocean thermal energy conversion that uses the temperature difference between the cold bottom waters of the tropics and the warm surface waters. We have a lead in Europe but we are not encouraging that. If we want to export these technologies we need to make sure that the resources are available.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Committee on Budgets has attached the greatest importance to this matter, the e-Learning initiative, because of the great contribution it can make to European citizens enjoying, through appropriate training, better living and working conditions in the new information society. I would remind you that, under the broad economic guidelines for 2002, adopted on 3 April, which are an important political instrument in budgetary matters, specific consideration is given to the e-Learning initiative as an important stage in the process of achieving the strategic objective established by the Lisbon European Council. This objective was to create a knowledge-based economy capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. In this context, I would ask the Commission to look into the possibility of laying down a more suitable legal framework, which will genuinely complement the action of Member States in this field. This is also the approach adopted in the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, annexed to the Mauro report. I would state once again that an initiative as important as this justifies the creation of a specific programme with its own legal basis. It therefore seems insufficient to use existing programmes, such as Leonardo, Socrates, Culture 2000, research programmes and Structural Funds, as sources of funding for the new initiative, which should stand on its own in terms of funding too. At the same time, we take the greatest interest in the way in which existing preparatory action is implemented in this field in this year’s budget, that is the budget for 2001. Lastly, I wish to congratulate Mr Mauro on his excellent work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, you are aware, as is the whole House, that the Group of the did not vote for you. Today, however, this group has unanimously applauded your work and your speech. Allow me to make a personal comment: welcome to the club of former Presidents of the European Parliament! It is one of the most exclusive clubs in the world. (Applause)

Political group: PSE