GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I wanted to ask you about a non-profit association that calls itself the non-profit association pension fund. Members of the European Parliament, I believe that pension funds have already been discussed here in the European Parliament a number of times, and that we are in a transitional phase. That is why I am extremely bemused to find an invitation from Mr Balfe here for a meeting that he is going to have with the non-profit association pension fund. I wanted to ask whether Parliament provides the interpreters and covers the expenses for meetings of this kind, and whether this non-profit association continues to be supported in any way by Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should just like to let Mr Corbett know that within the EPP Group an amendment cannot be put before Parliament unless it has been voted in the Group and has the support of the Group. He should be quite clear about that procedure within our Group. Secondly, as he is aware, there is a process going on at the moment for reforming Parliament. If he has any suggestions to put to the Bureau about the voting procedures, that would be the correct way to go about it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, part of the debate proves that we, in fact, need a directive, because if people claim here that Europe is meddling in a centralist manner in an area which should fall under the remit of the Member States, knowing what has happened in many countries of Europe – even yesterday on television, there was again a whole raft of reports of attacks on Jewish synagogues, a report on the rape of a woman of foreign origin etc – they must have some nerve claiming that Europe does not need a directive on anti-discrimination. Groups which are in the firing line are those groups which peopled the concentration camps during the Second World War, namely people of certain religious beliefs, for example Jehovah’s witnesses. I am thinking of people of a particular race: Jews, gypsies, etc; I am also thinking of the disabled, people who could no longer keep up, the elderly; all these people were at risk of being put in a concentration camp. This is also true for homosexuals. So those who claim here that Europe does not need to lay down in a directive the values which we all aim to defend are mistaken. We do need this to happen and we must give out this signal to the outside world. Belgium is holding local elections on Sunday. We have agreed with all democratic parties that we will be forming a cordon sanitaire against the extreme right. This means that none of these parties will form a coalition with the extreme right. This is an extremely important decision and we feel supported by directives such as these, which is of great importance. Commissioner, I should like you to carry on undeterred, as we desperately need this decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the joint compromise resolution there is a reference to setting a deadline at the end of November for a restoration of democracy. Would the Commissioner accept that is a suitable target and a suitable deadline? Otherwise, the danger is the current government in Fiji will go on negotiating forever, but never come to a conclusion.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have a few comments to make about the report by our fellow Member, Karl von Wogau. I believe that when discussing the coordination of economic policies, the debate that we are holding today and the vote that we will take on this report are still our main cornerstones, on which any comments should be based. From this point of view, I cannot resist the pleasure of repeating a warning. These broad economic guidelines are still our primary analytical and working tools for arranging the coordination of economic policies. We can only regret the fact that once these broad guidelines have been adopted, they will no longer be part of the national debate. I urge all our colleagues in the Member States to take these broad guidelines into account when they draw up national budgetary and fiscal guidelines, because otherwise there will be no genuine coordination of economic policies. We shall soon have the opportunity to come back to this subject, when we discuss the communication by the Commissioner. I have three comments to make on the main thrust of the proposal submitted to us today by our fellow Member, Karl von Wogau. The first comment is to express my pleasure at what the report says on enhancing this tool and on the prospect of a convergence of the fiscal and budgetary policies of the Member States, particularly and primarily of those belonging to the euro zone. I have taken note of the consideration given here to the importance of economic stature, which should be taken into consideration when considering sanctions against a Member State. I imagine that this will take us back to the debate that we had last year on the situation in Ireland. I believe that the decision taken on Ireland is not exceptional. This decision was expected, it was legitimate and it was fortunate. Even so, if we have to consider the importance of economic stature in various situations, we will then have to look at how Mr Berlusconi will implement his economic policy and whether this is compatible with the broad guidelines that we are finalising today. Mr President, I would like to make one comment, if I may, on the reform of the labour markets. If this involves carrying out structural reforms, by amending the Directive establishing a European Works Council, on the information and consultation of workers, we can only support this. Lastly, with regard to liberalisation, I think that experience both within and beyond Europe suggests that we should be extremely careful in maintaining access to public services, in parallel with these changes.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, may I first say as an aside that, with all due respect, you cannot blame the weather for everything. In the end, we too have had our part to play in the fact that cod stocks are now at this catastrophic minimum level of one third, that is 50 000 tonnes. Let us not forget it! My main comment, however, is as follows: I have taken over – foolishly, I am almost tempted to add – as the Committee on Fisheries' rapporteur for the 2004 Budget. The basis for this work is of course the current budget for 2003, a prominent feature of which is the reform of the CFP and its requirements. No provision is made in the individual budget lines for disasters, however, which means that we are not prepared for them, either in the Member States or in the European Parliament. Generous interpretation of the rules on flexibility and the reserve, as was still possible in the case of Morocco, is no longer an option. It is primarily the Member States that are having to pick up the bill for the consequences of the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia and the 45% reduction in the catch quota for cod. Their policy – the policy of the Member States – is also in need of reform. However we here in Parliament need to help the fishermen today. It is still a fact that it is not pity or greed that motivates our actions here in Parliament, but the knowledge of the hardship being suffered by our coastal communities, which in addition have to earn their daily bread under the most difficult of conditions. We all know that in the peripheral areas of our prosperous EU there is usually no alternative work available. We, the EU, are a community based on solidarity and we have to help. But how? At times like this a great deal of good will and assertiveness is needed in this House, particularly in the Committee on Budgets, but also in the Commission and crucially – as I have said – in the Member States. Please take note!

Political group: PPE-DE
We have supported this report since its first reading in February 2001. Its relevance warrants our support once again and this is why we have voted in favour of it. Developing, programming, monitoring and assessing the European employment strategy with the involvement of the social partners and local and regional authorities are important and essential objectives for fully and effectively achieving the strategic ambitions defined at the Lisbon European Council. More and better jobs mean greater economic and social cohesion. It is, therefore, crucial that cooperation between Member States is improved with regard to exchanging experiences and information and identifying best practices in addition to the involvement of the social partners and local and regional authorities, not forgetting the implementation of an active and transparent public information policy that takes account of the public’s requirements for transparency. One particularly praiseworthy aspect of this report is the attention it pays to the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women in the employment and labour markets. Undertaking studies on the provision of childminding structures and of home assistance and care services is an essential instrument for assessing shortcomings in this field, initially and then putting into practice, in a later stage, an action plan designed to enable people to reconcile their professional lives with their family lives. With regard to the budget and annual appropriations, we agree with the rapporteur’s position and fully support it. Report Ghilardotti (A5-0325/2001):

Political group: PPE-DE
Paragraph 23 makes a useful reference to the European social model. This model should be developed in order to safeguard social standards that are attractive to the rest of the world. Giving employees the possibility of having a share in business assets is a path that we must take and that should bring about fresh proposals from the Commission to take effect in particular in the Member States, by using the system of tax exemptions. In this context, the use of tax exemptions in high-employability sectors (public works, services, hotel and catering trade, etc.) should be integrated into the European social model.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Garcia-Margallo, ladies and gentlemen, let me say right from the start that the Commission has always had, and will continue to have, our group's support for anything that helps to generate more economic dynamism and anything that furthers the implementation of the common objectives and decisions. There is, however, one point to which allusion has already been made and which it is important to underline from the outset. We have an internal market concept, we have the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, we have European competition policy, we have the Financial Services Action Plan and the Risk Capital Action Plan, we have Article 2, which obliges Member States to pursue a course of economic policy coordination, we have the Stability and Growth Pact, we have the euro, we have EU enlargement and hence the expansion of the internal market into a home market, and we have the eco-social market economy as our model of economic governance, which means competitiveness within a free market, promoting social cohesion while being mindful of its responsibility towards nature and people. Should not all this be enough to put us in a better position than we are in? Why do we need new economic policy guidelines? We need them because we have no European employment policy, because we have no European economic policy, and because the task of implementing all the various decisions that we jointly adopt is therefore primarily a matter for the Member States and because many Member States fail to do their homework. Half-heartedness, superficiality, a lack of courage, and complacency, indeed, insincerity about many of the key issues on the Community's agenda shape the picture. There is a lack of ambition and a lack of political will. Let me say this here today: new economic policy guidelines are no substitute for political will, for the willingness to act instead of apportioning blame, and for greater commitment and a willingness to accept responsibility for all these issues. We need more European thinking instead of wrong-headed national egotism. There can therefore be only one message sent out from here today, and it is this: we need a benchmark. Who is the best, the most creative, the fastest, the most successful in implementing common decisions? It is results that matter, not guidelines or a succession of summits. It is the successes, not the means of achieving them, that matter, and we must therefore do our utmost to implement what we have agreed. We need fresh impetus, new and courageous efforts, more own capital, more risk capital, and a climate that favours business start-ups. We must strengthen the internal market and remove distortions of competition. We must introduce majority voting on matters relating to taxation and harmonise all business taxes in Europe. We need more competitiveness, more research, more competition in education and research, and more competition on merits. If we finally do what we all pledge to do at all the summit meetings, Europe will not only be the world's number one in terms of its population and area, but also in terms of competitiveness and employment. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, could you please find out how these three people even got in here? We have such a strict security system, that we have trouble gaining admittance for our own citizens who come here with good intentions. These people could not have got in without being let in. The fact that the Communists stood up when they came in shows where they came from. Please look into this very carefully and check who signed the slip. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, having listened to Commissioner Vitorino and several of my fellow Members, I can see that we share a concern to provide information to our citizens, and I listened with great interest to the Commissioner asking us for more resources than those which were set aside in the preliminary draft budget and the budget. We were, in fact, extremely surprised to see the reductions which had been made to these lines, at a time when so many doubts are being harboured by European citizens who still do not seem to be receiving the right information. Commissioner, I would like to emphasise the fact that we tabled many amendments in order to give the Commission another chance to complete this essential task, namely the communication on the work of the European Union institutions. But I would also like to stress the fact that this communication must be, as Mrs Iivari said, targeted towards the ordinary citizen, the average citizen, who, when working or going to the market, does not understand what the European Union is doing for the future. We must undertake a thorough review of the strategy used by our institutions to communicate with the public. Let us go to meet the inhabitants of our fifteen countries and try to understand them. I believe that, as we did for economic measures, we must move from macrointervention towards closer intervention. As we do for SMEs, let us go and look for the citizens one by one!

Political group: PSE
Madam President, it has to be said that biofuels have immense inherent potential for innovation, with all its positive side-effects, but let us not deceive ourselves about the great initial costs that there will also be to cope with. ‘Biojuice’, in itself, has a pleasant ring to it because it somehow appeals to our ecological conscience, but lauding ‘biojuice’ to the heavens as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a bit exaggerated. In that respect, we have to keep our feet on the ground. A product which promises net improvements of 45% at most obliges us to put more support measures in place in other areas. The same goes for fiscal incentives. Even if the same potential and the same financial resources as are envisaged in this area were to be invested in thermal insulation for example, energy requirements could be reduced by three times as much. From a purely ecological point of view, then, the appropriateness of biofuels is at least up for discussion, but we cannot deny that this product has a future. Innovation is inherent in it. Yet, when looking into the future, we also have to take into account the fact that this provides a way ahead especially for the candidate countries, with large areas of agricultural land. However, it is in this sector that policy is moving in the direction of maximising production, and probably doing so with the aid of genetic manipulation. Do we want that as well? If we do, then OK. In addition, there is still doubt about the cost-benefit ratio from the consumer's point of view. I hope that is something we will be able to resolve. If, for example, the price of crude oil drops on world markets, the cost of producing petroleum will also be down, and producers of the agricultural raw materials may, or indeed will, require additional subsidies. This is not a time for euphoria, but the proposed compromises between the groups certainly give us a chance.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in relation to the Schroedter report, I am aware, and have had it confirmed to me by Mr Barnier, that the rules on additionality concerning Structural Funds apply only at the level of Member States and do not apply in a transitive and transparent way inside Member States in favour of self-governing regions such as Wales or Scotland. I regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I hope we can revisit this issue at a later time. I want it to be clear that though I voted in favour of the report, I have this important reservation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Danish Social Democrats have today voted against the Commission’s proposal concerning the organisation of the market for beef. We have also voted against Parliament’s report. Both proposals are along the wrong lines. The crisis in the beef sector must be used to reform the organisation of the market, not to introduce still more aid. We have therefore voted against all amendments aimed at increasing aid. The proposal is all too short-term. It does not limit the production of beef. Instead, the proposal will introduce still more bureaucratic and expensive premium schemes. Instead, the opportunity should be taken to reform the organisation of the market. That mainly means reducing prices. The crisis in the beef sector is not only about structural inequality in the market for beef, but undoubtedly also about a lack of consumer confidence in food safety. The crisis is therefore a good reason for embarking upon a fundamental reform of agricultural policy.

Political group: PSE
You are going to be surprised, Mr President, for this time, before I left for Strasbourg, it was Mr Carlo Fatuzzo the tourist who said to Mr Carlo Fatuzzo the MEP – we talk to each other sometimes in the mirror – 'Seeing as you are going to debate the issue of the protection of victims, remember that last year I went to Spain on holiday and, when I got out my wallet in front of the Sagrada Familia to make a donation in order to make my humble contribution to the conclusion of the work on this structure, both wallet and all the documents inside disappeared. I went to the Spanish police station immediately and reported the incident before you could say 'Jack Robinson'. But when I got back to Italy, Mr Fatuzzo,' continued Carlo Fatuzzo the tourist, 'in order to obtain another identity card and another driving licence, I had to report the incident again, this time to the Italian police. I had to report the same theft twice. Therefore, roll on the advent of this directive which will simplify the procedures!'

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, to repeat a felicitous expression used by GESAC (the European Association of Authors’ and Composers’ Societies), the draft under discussion was subjected to unjustified attacks during its review by the Council. The agreement reached by the Council is no longer an accurate reflection of the Commission’s initial proposal, which was widely supported by Parliament at its first reading. The Socialist Group, as well as the greater part of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was astonished at the attitude of the Council of Ministers, whose position is unacceptable in several respects. The suggestion that transposition periods for Member States should be increased to 15 years is the least acceptable element, given that the Commission’s original proposal was four years ago. As a matter of principal, a 15-year time limit is unacceptable in such a rapidly changing world as our own. The industry will change beyond recognition in that time, mainly due to technological progress. In addition, setting this type of precedent at a time when the European Union is set to double in size would be to give out the wrong signal to candidate states. It would be better to give up the idea of a directive rather than establish such a time limit. The Socialist Group did not therefore want Parliament to discredit itself by accepting proposals which make a mockery of the votes cast at the first reading. So we are delighted, firstly, that Mr Zimmerling, the rapporteur, understands and shares our feelings on the issue of the time limit as well as many other problems, which he detailed this evening. We are moreover delighted that almost all the democratic groups share the same constructive point of view. Once again, the debate and the upcoming vote will be decided between those wishing to forge ahead with European integration and those who are prepared to let themselves be side-tracked by national interests (of dubious legitimacy) rather than the interests of European creative artists. It is furthermore essential that we find a common position on the matter in hand, since this is the only way that the European Union will be able to carry any weight internationally and to defend the interests of creative artists worldwide.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, our group believes it would indeed be more useful to concentrate on the matter of Prague and Czechoslovakia instead of hooliganism, because the foundations of the oldest Jewish cemetery were uncovered during the construction of an underground car park. The coffins were then dug up and removed from the cemetery completely without ceremony. Despite the Czech government’s promises to find an alternative site for the underground car park and to duly respect the cemetery as an historic monument, and despite the protests issued by various embassies, the construction work continued. Our group feels that it must be made clear to candidate countries such as the Czech Republic that the European Union insists on respect being shown for fundamental rights such as freedom of worship and philosophy of life. I think that now would be the ideal time for the European Parliament to issue a statement to this effect. (Parliament rejected the request from the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party)

Political group: ELDR