GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the spread of democracy and the establishment of pluralism and the rule of law in the eastern part of Central Europe are common objectives not only of the region itself but of the entire continent. This was said in May 1990 by the then Hungarian Foreign Minister, Mr Gyula Horn, when he received the International Charlemagne Prize in Aachen. At that time, the three Baltic States were still part of the Soviet Union, and Germany had yet to be reunited. Today this objective of our entire continent has been achieved, which makes this a momentous day. In 1956, Hungary bravely rose up against dictatorship. Decades later, at a time when the Warsaw Pact still existed, East German citizens took part in a pan-European lakeside picnic by the Fertö Tó, or Neusiedler See, an event which our fellow MEPs Otto von Habsburg and Bernd Posselt had helped to organise, before striking out again on the road to freedom, and it was Hungarian border guards who stood aside and let them pass. Shortly afterwards, the Hungarian Foreign Minister, together with his Austrian counterpart, Alois Mock, cut through the Iron Curtain. That was the first step in a process which culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is why we in this Parliament today shall say ‘yes’ ten times over. In the case of some countries, our ‘yes’ will be more muted, more hesitant. In other cases, it will be loud, instant and clear. In Hungary, the European legal order has taken root. In the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights and Common Security and Defence Policy, the Hungarian Prime Minister voiced his criticism of expulsion orders more plainly than the competent EC Commissioner and more plainly than several other heads of government. And so I shall say ‘yes’ ten times over today, but my clearest and most spontaneous ‘yes’ will be reserved for Hungary. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as you have pointed out, next week, a year will have passed since the Erika disaster and the European Parliament and the Council have still not been capable of agreeing on the approval of the initiative for the first maritime safety package. In this first package there is a proposal relating to Directive 57/94, which deals with inspections of ships and the classification societies. The main difficulty stems from the amendment of Article 6 of that directive; the Commission and the European Parliament propose the introduction of financial compensation to cover the possible responsibilities of classification societies in cases of maritime accidents. Since the essence of this issue centres on this compensation, I would ask you, Commissioner, to withdraw the amendment to Article 6 and I would like to ask all the other Members of the European Parliament to withdraw the amendments to Article 6 and let us leave it for the second package which you have just announced.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all, I would like thank the rapporteur of the EQUAL report, Mrs Stenzel, very warmly for all the efforts she has made to master this very complex subject matter on behalf of all of us. EQUAL is a very difficult programme because it attempts to combine so many old programmes and yet aims to view them in a different light, doing so with less money than was available in the previous funds. This is an arduous task. Only, the number of people affected by these programmes has not really dropped. This is why it is so hard to strike a balance, not only between the different countries or the different components, but especially between the different groups listed in the programme, and in fact this is what has preoccupied us to date. Comments are made here and there to the effect that one group should get more funding than another. I, for my part, have focused on the position of the handicapped and the elderly within the framework of the programme, and I have to say that their position could well have been overlooked altogether if it had not been for the European Parliament devoting special attention to them. Although a few other groups have been mentioned, it is the Member States, in particular, which are on the lookout. For example, I know of one Member State that would like to use a large proportion of the entire programme for one component, namely refugees. I would, therefore, ask the Commissioner to ensure that a balance is struck between these different groups. It should not be the case that one Member State, under the pretext of calling on the subsidiarity principle, can decide that all funding should go to one group. I think that this will have to be monitored closely because otherwise we will end up in that situation against which Mr Meijer has warned us so vehemently, to wit, that vested interests will emerge and that people will think that the money is theirs to spend. This is not the case! It has to be redistributed time and again. It should be used for innovative projects and it should not completely disappear into the Finance Minister’s treasury funds. That is not the intention and that is an important point that we need to bear in mind here. I believe that the remaining problems that we have faced within this Parliament, and which in large part stem from the fact that it is so difficult to strike the right balance, can be solved. As far as the Commission is concerned, I hope it will be able to join in the compromise that is being concluded here in this Parliament, mainly with a view to reaching a balance. I would just like to underline this – the situation is, of course, a little precarious – Parliament has, for the sake of convenience and safety, placed the EQUAL programme on the back burner for the time being, so that Parliament has yet to be persuaded of the way the funds are to be distributed. I believe that this is actually a good thing. The position of Parliament in this whole procedure is somewhat unclear. The Rules of Procedure do not shed any more light on the matter and that is exactly why this back burner is extremely useful.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the citizens of the European Union expect more than just vague commitments that are then forgotten and which are rarely converted into binding instruments or decisions that bring about a real improvement in the quality of their lives and of their work. In order to dispel any lack of confidence, this social agenda must enable objectives and policies that have been postponed for years to be put into practice. The Council must not leave various specific proposals that have been postponed year after year simply hanging in the air. I have in mind proposals on decisions that are crucial to improving the rights of working women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, and vital for improving workers’ collective and individual rights, including the right to information, consultation and participation, specifically in the framework of the European Company Statute and of the European Works Council. This is necessary from the point of view of guaranteeing workers’ rights and preventing redundancies as a result of successive mergers and relocations by multinationals in various European countries. As the rapporteur, Mrs Van Lancker, emphasises, although social dialogue is important, it must produce tangible results. Otherwise, the Commission will have to propose legislative instruments and the Council will have to approve the measures needed, specifically by amending macroeconomic policies and the Stability Pact, in order to give credibility to our fight against poverty and social exclusion and to our efforts to defend good quality jobs with respectable salaries and to advocate reforms that give employees dignity.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the rapporteur, to the Spanish presidency and to Commissioner Busquin who has been exemplary in his patience, understanding and respect for Parliament's opinions. Clever people all over Europe are waiting to hear what we decide this week, because next year they will be able to use their brains on our behalf. We will give them the money to do work which will help our economy and our society. There is a strong correlation between research effort and economic success, and the European Union at least is giving an example and showing that it understands that connection. We have been able to reach a very wide consensus in Parliament across political and national boundaries on the Sixth Framework Programme. We are coming up with a programme which highlights key areas for research but at the same time expresses the wishes of the citizens of Europe for scourges like cancer and other illnesses and for environmental dangers to be combated with intelligence. This is one part of the European research area. Member States must do the rest. It is their responsibility. The European Union is doing its part. Thank you to those who have enabled more money to be spent on the important area of science and society which includes a detailed examination of ethics. We in the Group will not support amendments on ethics, but we appreciate the declaration which has been brought forward. At the end of a long process, may I thank once again our excellent rapporteur who has worked in a remarkable way, our shadows and everyone else involved. Clever people of Europe, the money is on its way! (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, obviously the technical issues relating to this specific matter have been adequately analysed; consequently, I shall focus on the political aspect of the matter and say that the question of the Single European Sky is inspired by two different and somewhat contradictory philosophies. The first philosophy considers that delayed flights, which are a very extensive phenomenon in Europe, are a serious blow to the airline companies, the passengers themselves, the environment and the economy as a whole. One of the most basic reasons to which this situation is ascribed is the constant increase in air traffic and, more importantly, the lack of a common system for managing the airspace of the European countries. The other philosophy reflects the concern of certain Member States who would like to secure their airspace rights, mainly in relation to their defence obligations and needs, and the corresponding facility to carry out military exercises in that space. These concerns are more acute where there are problems connected with these issues, in countries such as my own. The European Parliament has espoused the first philosophy. As in numerous other sectors of European policy, the choice of a real Community policy and uniform regulation have been judged more efficient. This was the philosophy at first reading. The Council, unfortunately, relied solely on the second philosophy. The concerns and doubts prevailed. The Council set particular store by issues of public order, security and defence. In this way, it essentially deadened the Commission's proposal and, of course, its position bears no relation to the position of the European Parliament at first reading. If the Council agreed with the objective of the Single European Sky, it should have adopted a different strategy. Otherwise, it should have said honestly that it disagreed with the endeavour. It is obvious that we are being drawn into a conciliation procedure. In this procedure, the Council must demonstrate flexibility. I firmly believe that there are ways for us to take essential steps as far as the Single European Sky is concerned, without touching on national sensitivities and vital interests. Where there is a will, there is always a way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I rise under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of this House and allude to the same point raised by Mr Davies about the very serious allegations made on BBC radio this morning. I would welcome an assurance from you that you will order an investigation to ensure that the two Members who were named in this particular BBC interview are not running their companies from this Parliament or from parliamentary offices, because that would be a very serious matter indeed. In the past the British Conservatives’ double standards have brought the United Kingdom’s House of Commons into disrepute, and there is a very real danger that such behaviour would have a similar impact on this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, before I start my speech I would like to inform Mr Bouwman that the company he was referring to is the Sintel company, which went bankrupt, forcing unemployment on a large number of its employees. However, several months ago the Spanish Government took on the responsibility of making backdated wage payments to Sintel’s employees, relocating or finding other such solutions for all those affected. I say this so that you may be fully informed, Mr Bouwman. Now I will move on to my speech on this report. The document we are debating refers to the proposal for amending Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of national laws relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. Mr Bouwman has, in fact, given a very clear example of this situation. The amendment aims to take into account changes to insolvency law in Member States and the need for consistency with other Community directives on labour law already adopted. All of this should be based on a political will to provide employees with a minimum degree of protection under Community law in the event of their employer becoming insolvent. The difficulties involved in achieving the intended objective of the Directive are, in my opinion, threefold: firstly, the concept of insolvency; secondly, the complexity of the arrangement introduced to allow a time and quantity limits to be placed on the guarantee; thirdly, insolvency cases with a cross-border dimension. With the aim of clarifying the situation, the Group of the European People’s Party has once again tabled two amendments: No 16, which includes cases of externalisation or similar, subcontracts, the ‘fake self-employed’, etc., all of which could conceal a true employment contract. In our opinion, we need to reveal the truth before protective methods are implemented, to protect the salaried employee. To not do this would be to open the floodgates which would quickly exhaust the fund in question. Amendment No 17 clarifies the notion of protectable earnings from the corresponding national fund and prevents fraud. All of this is inherent to the protective nature of labour legislation and is inspired by the desire to clearly define the concepts needed for the fund to serve its purpose. This is a clarification of ideas which aids progress towards legal certainty and harmonisation. Regrettably, this is a case which, as we have recently witnessed with another Belgian company, is taking place in large companies, due to the restructuring of these companies and the relations which currently exist in the economic world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am almost tempted to start a debate with Mr Langen on moratoriums; I opposed moratoriums in biotechnology, and I would be against one in this case too. I would prefer, though, to concentrate on research, for we need a policy on it if the European economy is to be competitive. The astonishing thing is that this is an area about which we are all agreed, and yet, especially in the Member States, it has experienced cutbacks over recent years. Most spectacularly of all, in France – for the first time in Europe – researchers are even taking to the streets, and their counterparts elsewhere are perfectly prepared to do likewise, so it is not just the farmers who are demonstrating; the researchers are obviously doing it too. I see that as interesting, but also regrettable, for this makes it quite plain how the high-flown utterances of Heads of State or Government contrast with the austerity of their actions. Now, along come the finance ministers and tell us that there is no money. The question is, though, whether we cannot do any research because we have no money, or whether we have no money because we are not doing any research. To take just one Member State as an example, Finland shows us very clearly how it is possible, even when times are hard, to succeed by investing in the future. Today, Finland keeps on being hailed as the highest-achieving country in the European Union, and it has not even been a Member State for that long. What this means is that Finland has done a great deal, even without the European Union. So I would urge us in this House to keep on track in campaigning for the 3% expenditure on research and for the launching of an innovation strategy for small- and medium-sized enterprises. I will conclude by urging Members to this House to be present at the Science Convention that we intend to organise in Brussels for early April, in order to make it clear that this strategy still enjoys support from this House, at least.

Political group: PSE
The President of the Commission’s intervention sums up all of the committees’ work which provided the opportunity to assess the political positions of the various Commissioners. On the whole, the fundamental political positions which have been responsible for the current problems were defended, particularly those on unemployment and social exclusion. The complete lack of confidence that our citizens have in the European institutions, which was clearly demonstrated by the low turnout in the recent elections, requires not only “a modern and efficient administration”, but new policies which will respond positively to the socio-economic problems currently experienced by the European Union’s Member States. This is why the central features of the positions held are still neo-liberal and federalist policies, although in a few cases, there were hints of social concern in the speeches, but without any concrete suggestions as to how they might be implemented. Only yesterday, Romano Prodi clarified his position when he claimed that it was necessary to “restructure the single market and to promote liberalisation”, and deliberately emphasised the need to continue the process of liberalisation in the goods and service sectors. If we maintain the criteria of Maastricht and the Stability Pact, the European Employment Pact loses any credibility it might have had, and this, together with the insistence on the flexibility of working conditions makes it clear that what is at stake is an increasing deregulation of working conditions. In turn, no progress has been made on the need to assess the movement of capital, in terms of national social programmes having to adapt to current demographic trends, which proves that, in fact, their objective is not greater social justice, but quite the opposite: greater social inequality. In the area of farming, there was still an insistence on the great objectives of the CAP – common agricultural policy – and on a greater liberalisation of the markets, which upholds the injustices in the distribution of aid and subsidies, with an obvious bias against family-based farming and against countries such as Portugal where small-holdings represent the most common kind of farming. Concerning foreign and defence policies, the insistence on the federalist approach was emphasised, as was the strengthening of the CFSP’s militaristic positions, instead of a decisive pledge for policies of co-operation. These are the main reasons for a vote against the new Commission.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ordinary people in most African countries are poorer today than when their countries became independent. Poverty, therefore, is a disease inflicted upon innocent populations by evil dictators, greedy and corrupt politicians. Natural disasters, including climate change, have aggravated the problem. The Touareg in the desert in northern Niger, the Makonde in Tanzania or Mozambique take their families and put their meagre possessions in a little basket if they wish to move. They are poor, insecure and exposed to the elements. They have no water, sanitation, energy, medicine, education or reliable shelter. Such desperate people cannot think of democracy and human rights in the way we do from our houses and leafy suburbs in the West. They have no stake in their village, regional or national economies. Such rootless people, desperate people, are easy prey to evil political manipulation, and that is why we see so much conflict and civil unrest in those countries. We here in this Assembly offer these people open and free access to our EU markets. We invite them to be part of the global economy, so that they can come and sit at the tables in Seattle for the WTO discussions. What does this mean to these poor people, the majority of whom live in the bush, who have no knowledge, no means of efficient cultivation, harvesting, processing, packaging even what little they grow? They cannot even market it in their own countries let alone sell it abroad. So I suggest, let us teach them to be self-reliant and independent, by teaching them the means to grow and harvest what there is in those countries. Let us give them the technology transfer that makes sense, before we say our markets are open to them.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must firstly express my satisfaction at the proposed regulation on the principles for registers of taxes and social contributions in accordance with the criteria of the European system of national and regional accounts (ESA 95). I say ‘satisfaction’ because the approval of this regulation takes us closer to a transparent system which is comparable in the various Member States in relation to the calculation of the public deficit. I must say that, in general, the joint position of the Council largely includes the criteria of the European Parliament’s position. I say ‘in general’ because, even though, thanks to the notable absence of some MEPs on the left, the benches on the right managed to introduce an amendment on the possibility of the Council considering agreeing to an adaptation period for the application of the regulation, the Council interprets that the Member States will have the right to request this delay of the application of this transitional period but that, in all cases, the Commission will be able to reject that postponement if the request is not sufficiently well-founded. When we talk about a unified Europe in an economic and financial sense, this unification must clearly be carried out on the basis of honesty and transparency, because no other method is acceptable, and the regulation – which I hope will be approved – has precisely the virtue of eliminating those practices, which unfortunately are very wide-spread in certain Member States, which tend to disguise – so to speak – situations of deficit, by using various different accounting methods. Therefore, on the contrary, we will take the direction of seriousness in accounting in order to prevent behaviour – as I have said – which is less than transparent, if not fraudulent. I therefore repeat that the joint position of the Council must be supported, in my opinion, because this regulation introduces a mechanism for adapting to the European System of Accounts 95 which ensures, effectively, comparability and transparency in the public accounting of the Member States in areas as sensitive and important as those relating to the calculation of the public deficit. This approval also ensures that the right to request adaptation periods is counterbalanced by the right to reject such a period if it is not well founded. Finally, I must ask the Commissioner present today, because I have asked this repeatedly, to express, in this plenary session, an effective commitment to this Parliament for the presentation of an offprint to the regulation in relation to the registers and calculation of VAT own resources, because – I must remind you – the approval of the joint position was, in my view, linked to this commitment. I therefore repeat this request here in plenary session. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE