GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, few things concern the European citizens more than the health of their pensions, few things in their family life or their social life demands such constant attention throughout their lives, perhaps because for millions and millions of Europeans pensions are the only significant asset they accumulate and the only security they have against the risks of biological life or economic life. This excellent report by Mr Andersson is the culmination of a legislature of the European Parliament during which we have brought our agenda into line with the agenda of the citizens. This is an important legislature because the European Parliament, also following excellent communications and excellent initiatives from the Commission, has introduced the issue of pensions into the Community agenda for the first time. We are extremely happy that at the end of this legislature progress has been made on a philosophy which has radically increased the appreciation of this phenomenon. It is no longer just a concern inspired by financial considerations or the balance of public finances. We now have a doctrine, a strategy, which together with this important issue, we have enriched and supplemented with the objectives and needs of the European citizens. We are therefore pleased that this report and the Commission's Communication have analysed the strategies of the Member States, taking account of financial viability of course! Perhaps in this way we are also demonstrating that we are responsible politicians. There are basically two categories of politician: there are irresponsible politicians, who only think about the next elections, and there are responsible politicians who think about the next generations. The Andersson report is thinking about the next generations, but is also thinking about bringing things up to date so that social security, pensions, fulfil our objectives and combat poverty. It also thinks about modernisation and categories of workers, particularly women, who face such risks in the new social order and the labour market. What does the Commission tell us about the situation of our Member States? We can see that there is a will, but we can also see that there is sometimes apathy and a lot of prudence; and I would also add that there is fear of reform in the Member States, perhaps because the population is afraid that reform may in fact be an excuse to talk about cuts in their social rights. It is therefore very important that we help to overcome these fears amongst the population by presenting reforms which are not just cuts, but which are aimed at satisfying their current and future needs within a more secure, fair and equitable framework. Tomorrow, the Socialist Group will support the Andersson report and the work of the Commission because we believe that in fact the changes proposed are not frivolous, or opportunistic, but that they respond to our social commitment to this generation of workers, to these citizens, and also to those who will live in Europe in the next generation.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, since a colleague has mentioned the name of Gibraltar could I remind the House that Sunday, 10 September is the national day in Gibraltar and some of us will be there. But I am surprised that the House is not debating Burma on this day. Yesterday, the ministers of the 15 imposed sanctions on Burma, and there has been a siege of the elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, and an outburst of violence around her home. The British Ambassador was beaten up this morning, and the European Parliament should take strong action towards Burma, just as the ministers are doing. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the agreements we are debating will in future underpin cooperation relations between the European Union, Mercosur and Chile. They constitute a particularly important set of documents. Together with the agreement signed with Mexico, they are enabling us to update, relaunch and move forward relations between the European Union and a group of states. The latter represent a very significant part of Latin America from the demographic, economic and political point of view. This has a particular bearing on economics and trade. We should take into account that the other party we are dealing with ranks fourth in the world in these fields. It also has great potential for growth. I do, however, believe that the cooperation and political coordination which ought to be set up on the basis of these agreements are no less important. Close political links with Latin America have always been a priority for Spaniards. Nevertheless, I feel that it should be obvious to any European that the continent in question constitutes an entity which, given its history, culture and current state of development, is far closer to what is understood by Europe. In particular, it is close to the European Union venture. The Latin Americans are the closest to us as regards values and democratic aspirations. No other group shares our commitment to strive for social justice and national dignity to the same extent. The latter is, however, tempered by many decades of work towards supranational integration and responsible and coordinated involvement at international level. These agreements pave the way for ever closer political cooperation between Europe and Latin America. Perhaps we shall then be in a better position to set our own course. In recent decades both Europe and Latin America have been heavily influenced by our common uncle. For them, he lives just north of the Rio Grande. For us, he is just across the Atlantic. Cooperation between Europe and Latin America should allow us to make sound progress towards a world order based on democracy and solidarity. This is necessary to ensure world peace. In the light of globalisation, it is also essential for the survival and consolidation of democracy, the rule of law and the social progress we desire for all our people. This vision of our relations with Latin America is complementary to and coherent with the provisions of the Cotonou Convention affecting the African, Caribbean and Pacific community signed recently. Mr President, I think we are on the way to fleshing out a key chapter of what the European Union’s common foreign and cooperation policy ought to be.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to say something about the Spring Summit, which we can expect to be a sobering experience, and the ambitious process that we initiated at Lisbon four years ago. The grave economic downturn in many Member States demands more effective action. There is a need for closer approximation between economic, employment and structural policies, without going as far as attempting to harmonise them. Cutbacks in the bureaucracy of the state, improved structures in financial markets and more investment – to which Members have already referred – can promote the creation of more and sustainable jobs, but there is, above all, a lack of coordinated cooperation in the area of lifelong learning and the introduction of European educational marketing. Studies in the EU have revealed that too many young people have been poorly educated. More support for human capital, though, makes them more employable, and so this is something that has to be addressed in schools, work-based training and in universities. I also believe that social dialogue has to be stepped up. I regard it as a key element in handling changes in our society, and it is regrettable that, in many Member States, it tends to take place on the margins. The enlargement of the EU in the coming months means that we have to be consistent in pressing on with joint measures in employment and social policy, of which the European employment strategy was, and still is, one of the most successful features. I might add that the budgetary expenditure for these areas is minimal in comparison with the structural resources for enlargement. The Commission’s insistence on increasing contributions and hence the burden on net contributors can therefore only be repudiated. Both on the European and national level, we need something else, and that is iron discipline where spending is concerned. It follows from this that we cannot support the amendment in which the Socialists dare to warn of austerity budgets. The last point I want to make is that nothing will come of any attempt at softening up the Stability and Growth Pact or at discrediting it as unworkable. This, Commissioner Solbes Mira, is where the Commission is absolutely right; the budgetary offenders must be brought before the European Court of Justice. That deserves every political support, for the one thing needed by our businesses, by their workers as well as their managers, is guaranteed and long-term stability. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
This report and its amendments deal with financial support to Guinea-Bissau in the fisheries sector. Despite our many reservations, we voted in favour of them out of solidarity with the people of that country, especially its fishermen. Firstly, because the objective of the fisheries agreements between the European Union and third countries are, as is explicitly stated in some other reports, intended to spare European Union fisheries resources and, consequently, to increase catches from the waters of other countries. Next, because we do not know exactly how this aid will be used and what its precise ultimate destination will be. Unfortunately, however, too much of this aid is often nothing more than a de facto rebate granted to the European companies investing in these countries. Moreover, such aid is often also misappropriated by the local administration. Despite all that, at the end of the day, this money, which is supposed to assist the local people, will, even so, be better employed over there than the money given to major employers over here who are shedding jobs. - Van den Bos report (A5-0360/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when we see what the Commission is offering by way of lessons learned from the Eurostat affair, cynicism would seem to be the only appropriate response. On this issue, Commissioner, you are disavowing your own President. As early as September last year, and again on 18 November, President Prodi announced to this House that he would submit an action plan before the year’s end. In December, we were fobbed off until January, and now it is the end of January and we are still waiting for the proposals which have been announced and which are primarily intended to achieve a rapid improvement in the OLAF Regulation. Yet the Commission knows perfectly well that this is a race against time, and I can tell the Commissioner that time is precisely what we do not have. It is not possible to have two readings on 10 February. How do you see this working? Action is needed. This House has tabled appropriate proposals for your attention. I have the impression that it is the same old story in the Commission: Who is Commissioner, under which Director-General? I say this in all clarity. Yet the differences of opinion could be addressed relatively quickly. We need clear priorities for OLAF. It was your institution that said that OLAF had failed in the Eurostat affair. I say that in all clarity as well. We need priorities. We need a priority as regards protecting the subjects of the investigations, and I think we also need some amendments to the financial regulations. The responsibility of the authorising Directors-General is a case in point. It is right that the Directors-General should bear full responsibility for what happens in their directorate-general, but it is also true, especially in light of the Eurostat experience, that control is better than trust. You have not upheld this principle so far, and I think it is high time you did. I would remind you of that, Commissioner. Ultimately, that will be the key benchmark against which your work is measured at the end of this Prodi Commission’s term in office.

Political group: PSE
We can only vote against this heap of rubbish, which in its very first recital states that poor countries have ‘possibilities to improve their economic situation, fight poverty...’, however little they know how to use this ‘ICT revolution’. In many of the poorer countries, the majority of the population not only do not have electricity, they are not even fed properly. It is easier to draw up and adopt resolutions of this kind, and even to grant a few subsidies allowing computer manufacturers to dispose of unsaleable stocks, than to feed the people of these countries or, even better, to give them the opportunity to feed themselves, instead of exploiting them and forcing them to abandon even their own food crops in order to produce for western markets. It takes a great lack of awareness or a high degree of cynicism to state that ‘information and communication technologies afford possibilities of making a major contribution to direct democracy’. In some of the poorer countries, particularly in Africa, the people would be happy if the major European powers would make a ‘contribution’ to democracy by ceasing to support, finance and arm their dictators. However, it would be asking too much to expect the governments of Europe to abandon the long-standing dictatorships which protect the interests of their trusts. The people are demanding democracy, are they? Let them make do with the Internet! - Aparicio Sánchez report (A5-0122/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are having a major debate on a text of very little substance. The basic document is really no more than a Commission communication which embraces the conclusions and recommendations of a high level group on tourism and employment. Not only is there very little substance but this is also a rather old document dating from 28 April 1999 which therefore makes it nearly a year old. This document stems from the previous Commission. It is undoubtedly the result of work carried out by Commissioner Papoutsis throughout his term of office and which culminated in the Luxembourg summit and his failed Philoxenia programme. I believe this is the first debate in this House with the new Commission and a new Commissioner, Mr Liikanen, who is of course listening very closely to what we are discussing. I would take this opportunity to ask him a couple of questions directly. Firstly, the governments made a commitment at the Maastricht Conference of 1992 to include a legal basis for this issue in the Treaties. This commitment was not fulfilled in the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 and is therefore outstanding. Yet there is a Council resolution from last June on tourism and employment. What expectations does the Commissioner have that the new Intergovernmental Conference which is starting will include this aspect? My second question is much more direct and perhaps more awkward. Bearing in mind the failed efforts of the last decade, as highlighted by Mr Koch, does Commissioner Liikanen believe that he can do something during his term of office to ensure that the Community dimension of tourism becomes a proper policy, given the importance that all the previous speakers have given to tourism in terms of employment? Will the Commission present new initiatives in order to see whether, through the constant efforts of the Commission and Parliament, we can gradually convince the Council to do something on this issue?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that I am a little disappointed, because I expected to see evidence that the European Union had genuinely taken sustainable development on board, but that is still not the case. In Gothenburg, however, the Union had taken a big step in that direction by announcing its desire to measure sustainable development through the Spring Council meetings. Having heard your speeches, I am forced to admit that once again, this Spring Council meeting will not achieve that objective. Sustainable development is not part of the European plan, a chapter among others, as it was portrayed. Sustainable development implies a new approach to all our European policies, which would involve social and environmental issues as well as the economy. My question is as follows: have you analysed the Union’s policies in the light of these new criteria and, in particular, environmental criteria? We would like to know how environmental and social issues are reflected in your proposals. What are the consequences of an economy that we want to be the most competitive? Even more redundancies? Even more damage to the environment? We are aware today of the financial cost of that social and environmental damage. So please, do not make this Spring Summit just another summit, but an innovative one. The European Union will only get out of the current crisis if it changes its policies as the people expect, and only a socially and environmentally sustainable development plan will be capable of restoring the impetus, optimism and confidence that appear to be severely lacking in both the Council and the Commission. If the Union, our European Union, does not respond to the current challenges, both at international level – I am obviously thinking of the issue of Iraq, on which Europe is unacceptably divided – and at the level of European citizens, who are asking for more Europe, a better Europe, then who will be able to?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I wish to ask the House to really stand up for its rights. Earmarking is the only thing that we – by which I mean we rather than the Commission – can really do for culture. (Applause) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0360/2003) by Freddy Blak, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the discharges to be given for 2001 to: 1. the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (C5-0095/2003 – 2003/2042(C)) 2. the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (C5-0097/2003 – 2003/2043(C)) 3. the European Environment Agency for 2001 (C5-0099/2003 – 2003/2044(C)) 4. the Translation Centre (C5-0101/2003 – 2003/2045(C)) and 5. the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (C5-0103/2003 – 2003/2046(C)) (In successive votes, Parliament adopted the five resolutions) *** Report (A5-0344/2003) by Martine Roure, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the initiative of the Hellenic Republic with a view to adopting a Council Regulation on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network (9870/2003 – C5-0260/2003 – 2003/0817(CNS)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Proposal for a decision (B5-0468/2003) from the Conference of Presidents on setting up a temporary committee on improving safety at sea (Parliament adopted the decision) *** Report (A5-0361/2003) by Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (2003/2179(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0279/2003) by Anna Karamanou, on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, on Women in the New Information Society (2003/2047(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0265/2003) by Mary Honeyball, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission communication on taxation of passenger cars in the European Union (COM(2002) 431 – C5-0573/2002 – 2002/2260(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. – That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE Report: Oostlander (A5-0352/2003)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, as members of this Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, we are extremely concerned about the situation of women in the Mediterranean countries, which was so well described by Mrs Kratsa in her report. Widespread illiteracy – especially in certain countries, as the percentages she presents indicate - early school leaving, without achieving a level of study which prepares them for later life, and a lack of participation in the labour market – especially amongst young women - are factors which, together with poverty and marginalisation, above all affect women in the majority of cases. This is the case despite the cooperation agreements, which contain many clauses, but never make it very clear that the situation of women should be taken into account amongst the objectives, and that the promotion of women and their access to better levels of personal well-being and to the labour market must also be amongst those objectives, so that they can pursue their own professions. In these areas, health problems are one of the most serious situations they face, not only through a lack of healthcare, but also because of a lack of prevention. These problems affect the whole population in general, but particularly women. This is particularly surprising, given that we know the MEDA programme has had problems in this House, because not even half of what was intended has been implemented. The MEDA programme, which is aimed at cooperation programmes in the Mediterranean areas, in particular the Southern Mediterranean, would be a wonderful instrument for creating specific programmes for women, aimed at promoting the role of women and increasing the living standards of women, which would be an advantage to the whole population, since we all know how important women are in the least-developed societies and, in particular, in traditional societies, where women bear the greatest responsibility for the family which, furthermore, usually includes a large number of children. By means of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Members of Parliament we are well aware of the situation of these women, and we know what they expect from Parliament and the European Union. We therefore have the obligation to draw attention to these facts so that their needs may be met.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the forthcoming trade round must not, in my opinion, jeopardise cultural diversity. According to Unesco, culture comprises all the distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features which characterise a society or social group. In addition to the arts and literature, it encompasses ways of life, fundamental human rights, sets of values, traditions and beliefs. The right to culture is a fundamental human right. It is enshrined as such in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Cultural diversity must not just be safeguarded: it must be furthered and promoted as well. Of course, this applies to all the Member States of the Union, but it also applies to the developing countries, for cultural diversity is an integral part of our human heritage. In order to avoid running the risk of culture being seen as just another product one day in the future, we must provide it with a new legal framework so that it does not have to be part of the negotiations on world trade. Culture is not just another commodity. The WTO cannot and must not be the forum for the debate on culture, as, moreover, Commissioner Reding said recently, stating that: ‘... we must strongly oppose holding any general conceptual discussion on cultural diversity or cultural policies within the WTO ... The WTO is not the competent organisation to address this issue, nor has it been given a mandate to do so.’ We must therefore create a new binding international legal instrument, not just to further and promote cultural diversity but to establish trade rules for cultural goods and services too. A number of Ministers for Culture have agreed to draft this instrument, in order to provide the States in the future with the necessary means to be able to identify, from a cultural point of view and according to their specific situations, the policies they need to ensure the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity. Unesco is the body which is best suited for the task. I therefore call for this process to be brought to an end as soon as possible.

Political group: PPE-DE