GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I studied business management for five years and during that time, I identified one precept as the guiding principle for my entire course of study, and it is this: at the end of the year, you must be in the black. That means that the company must be in credit, but it also means being in the black yourself, in the interests of your family and your own self-esteem. I worked as a blacksmith for fifteen years, and during that time, I learned that it is not just a matter of being in the black; the most important thing is by how much you are in credit. In other words, how much equity can you build up in the company? Is your family happy with the income you have achieved, and how much provision for the future can you make through your own efforts? In reality, when considering entrepreneurs’ income, we must distinguish three separate factors. First of all, there is the fair wage for the work. If someone is working 40, 50, 60 or 80 hours a week, a fair wage basis must be applied. I think that in this respect, the entrepreneur should be treated the same way as an employee, in that the minimum wage should always be tax-free. The entrepreneur has invested capital. The Green Paper says nothing about the fact that equity should really be interest-bearing and how it should be taxed. Ultimately, the entrepreneur bears the risk, the risk of the many liabilities he has to assume. But nor does the Green Paper mention the liabilities which entrepreneurs have to assume today as a result of the ‘acquis communautaire’. What is needed here, therefore, is a fair assessment of performance, and here we need the Competition Council, which will make it possible, quite simply, to shape these fair competition conditions in future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, many Members have already stressed the value of the solidarity – and this fund is called the ‘Solidarity Fund’ – which is implied in and is the corner stone, the heart of the measure on which we are about to vote. We are building a Europe of solidarity. I would, however, like to highlight another value which I believe is absolutely central to this initiative – and we have all supported it and contributed to its timely achievement – and that is the political benefit to be gained from it. I feel, Commissioner, that there have been very few situations or events in which many, very many of our fellow citizens have for the first time felt that Europe is genuinely close to them, that it is truly an elder brother ready to run to their aid when they are in difficulties. We must never forget that, in some cases, the only experience many of our fellow citizens have had of the European institutions is of a set of rules and regulations, bans and directives. I believe there is a political benefit to be gained from showing them the friendly side of Europe, as we are doing in this case, particularly at times such as this – and we are approaching a major referendum now, we all know the details – a political benefit which we must not allow to go to waste. How are we to avoid wasting it? Commissioner, you put it very well and I fully agree with you. We cannot make this instrument, which was designed to respond to emergencies, rigid, unadaptable or inflexible, in other words an instrument which becomes ineffective or which is even in danger of not being used precisely because the rules to which we are linking it are too complex. We must maintain a certain flexibility in this matter and I can see that you are quite aware of this but – and this is the last point to which I would like to draw your attention, even though, I regret, you are not listening to me – I also feel that we must view this merely as an initial step. Ladies and gentlemen, nobody here wants to see events such as these repeated, but we have a responsibility to be realistic. Soon, there will be 25 Member States, and it is quite clear that the climate is changing. I am afraid that, statistically, it is realistic to expect more such tragedies to occur. Therefore, in the face of tragic events which, I am afraid, will be repeated, I do not feel that EUR 1 billion will suffice. We must endeavour to explore further possibilities for the future, Commissioner, for the 2004 budget, if possible. I will only make one suggestion at a time, and I would like to hear your opinion too. Why do we not set aside part of our leftover funds – for there is always so much money left at the end of each budget which we do not know how to spend – why do we not use a set amount for this fund? I invite you to reflect on the matter.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do indeed have an objection to make to this. That this House takes lawmaking seriously and treats it as being important is good practice. You will be aware that, tomorrow, as the Conference of Presidents has decided in its wisdom, we will first be having an associated second-reading debate on genetically-modified food and traceability, followed by a joint debate on food legislation, part of which will be on a second reading, and then there will be other debates, also on second readings. Without wishing to belittle the oral question put by the Group of the , I am convinced that the order of debate proposed by the Conference of Presidents was the right one. I sympathise with the Commission, which evidently has organisational problems, and I am sure – indeed, I have absolute confidence – that it can sort these organisational problems out, and that it will be in a position later in the day to give an answer to this question. (Parliament rejected the request) Wednesday President. As regards the motion for a resolution on trafficking in children and child soldiers included in the vote pursuant to Rule 104a, a group of 32 Members has submitted a written objection pursuant to Rule 104(4), in order to be able to table amendments thereto. If Parliament agrees, this motion for a resolution could be included in the vote on Wednesday and the deadline for amendments set for Tuesday at 10 a.m. (The President established that there were no objections to the proposal)

Political group: PSE
I am very aware that the country holding the presidency does not control the agenda entirely itself. However, initiatives can be taken in the matter of work in progress. The Commission can also, so to speak, be pressed to produce proposals faster and more effectively. In this context, I would like us to review the agricultural policy as such. The export subsidies make the very worst transportation profitable. There are many other subsidy systems that favour bad management of resources and the neglect of animals. I know that there are legislative shortcomings, but it is better to force through the observance of laws that already exist than to wait for additional new laws.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this regulation cannot be postponed any longer, and I fully support the stricter timetable that the European Parliament is proposing in the amendments to the Commission’s proposal. Consumers require information about where the animal was born, bred and slaughtered, and cattle should be identified and registered so that their traceability can be guaranteed. The Commission must be far more vigorous than it has been so far in putting the screws on those countries which have not established databases, so ensuring that the countries concerned become fully operational in this respect. The issue is also one of credibility when it comes to implementing joint resolutions in all Member States. It is also about citizens’ confidence and belief that food quality is everything it should be. A bit of drive needs to be shown, and no exceptions should be made in the case of cattle which graze in the mountains. Where registration is required, what, in any case, is the difference between cattle which graze in the mountains and those which graze in valleys or in fields? I am in favour of beef being labelled with the name of the country or countries it comes from and I am strongly against introducing a common EU label from which consumers cannot see which countries are involved. The purpose of the regulation in question must be to achieve a situation in which consumers have confidence in meat from all EU countries. Until this is a reality, consumers need to know precisely which country their meat comes from. I have tabled an amendment to the effect that the slaughterhouse’s authorisation number should not be shown on the label. In this way, I wished to ensure that small and medium-sized slaughterhouses could continue to supply meat to butchers. The authorisation number does not provide the consumer with any useful information and has no bearing upon traceability.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would be extremely grateful to you if you were to allow me to say one more thing about trans-Atlantic relations. I would like to urge the House to support this resolution, for, as the debate has shown, we have to strengthen transatlantic relations in such a way that they are no longer founded only upon NATO and security policy, but that we will be spreading them more widely and deepening them. The Council Presidency will support this, and so, I am sure will the Commission. The idea of the Transatlantic Marketplace is certainly a matter of very great importance, and so it would make sense if the EU/US Summit were to convene a group of experts to carry out, over the coming months, the studies that will be needed to enable us to get more involved in this project. Its significance is not merely economic; it will have a direct effect on the deepening of transatlantic relations. At the same time, though, it has to be said that my committee – unlike the lead Committee – actually takes the view that we should welcome the outcomes of the Commission’s negotiations on air transport, to prevent matters being made more difficult at this present time for people travelling back and forth, and that, here too, we should seek a practical approach in order thereby to strengthen relations even in the age of terrorism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it has long been acknowledged that asbestos is likely to cause serious diseases, including various types of cancer. This material is a danger not only to workers who are exposed to it, but also to public health in general. The Commission proposal, which is to be praised, and which seeks to amend this directive for the third time, has come about because of the need to strengthen existing orders so as to safeguard the health and safety of workers, especially in sectors where the risks of exposure are today acknowledged to be more dangerous. The proposal also seeks to ensure greater clarity in the definition of various types of fibre, because many doubts still remain about these and about the risks inherent in the minimum dose of exposure. The rapporteur, Elisa Damião, has adopted a balanced position on a sensitive and highly technical issue, on which I congratulate her. We can only welcome the emphasis she gives to prevention and to reducing exposure by workers to the minimum, particularly in activities involving the renovation, maintenance, upgrading or demolition of buildings. However, the measures envisaged for limit-values for exposure appear to be excessive where transite is concerned, since this is a substance that contains only 10% of fibres and, consequently, involves a lower degree of risk. Professional training provided by employers, improving financing methods for small and medium-sized enterprises and self-employed workers, is another much-needed measure and is to be applauded, as is the preservation of registers and medical case-notes for a period of 40 years. Amending this directive not only provides greater protection and safety for workers, but also avoids imposing unnecessary conditions on employers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too must say that this is a most interesting debate. We already had a taste of it in committee when Mr Laschet suddenly stepped forward ardently advocating rejection, despite belonging to the same group as the rapporteur. If we are in favour of rejection today, it is not because we do not appreciate Mr Ferber's work. On the contrary, we truly believe that Mr Ferber was a tough negotiator. We have the greatest respect. Nonetheless, we take the view that one voice here in Parliament must give a clear warning because a development is being introduced here which should give us all cause for concern. Like the previous speaker, I consider that this agreement cannot come under the gentlemen's agreement because it does not concern administrative expenditure. These are politically charged questions, as Mr Ferber has already made clear in his speech. They are also questions of transparency and control of the common foreign and security policy and of defence policy. Here too we are of one opinion. But Mr Ferber believes that introducing a separate title is sufficient guarantee that Parliament will be able to exercise control in the future. We have our doubts. We take the view that this separate title alone does not empower Parliament; on the contrary, because these posts are the Council's responsibility, they are beyond our influence and control. I think this is the deciding factor; not just the overlap, but the question of who can exercise control. What is at stake here is the delicate balance of power between Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The Council is taking on more and more, trying to resolve more and more intergovernmentally rather than by really communitising these areas. That would mean making the Commission responsible and strengthening Parliament's right of control. That is our one great fear, namely that we have no real control. There is also another point which must also be addressed. In our view this question should be resolved in a conciliation procedure, not under a trialogue, because that would demonstrate exactly how much importance we attach to this question and just how much store we set by Parliament's having full right of control. I think that the Council should be quite clear that Parliament will not brook this policy of using supplementary budgets to alter political relations and the political balance of power.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to play down the Dutch problem that is before us. We are not in an election campaign here. There is a need for some sharp criticism on a number of issues, but it should be levelled in a matter-of-fact way. First of all, I should like to say that I wholeheartedly support Mrs Gillig's and Mrs Lambert's position to follow a clear system in this coordination regulation and the corresponding annexes, and I am in favour of dealing with the annexes in a very restrictive manner, because the sting is in the tail in this case. We already stated with regard to the Lambert report that whatever was removed from the regulation could be retrieved via the annexes, and that is what the improvements we have made risk doing in a number of areas. The third point is that, when a benefit is no longer exportable, equivalent benefits and protection should be in place in other European countries. The Dutch government, but also the Commission to a certain extent, can be blamed for not having checked carefully enough whether this was the case. Mrs Van Lancker already indicated that there is no comparable system in Belgium, and we are, of course, unable to dash such an evaluation off for the 15 Member States, let alone for the 25 Member States following enlargement. That is clearly an omission in the report. It is also the point that we should address the most firmly. A solution is only possible if there are bilateral compensation regulations between Member States. I welcome Mrs Gillig’s willingness to include a recital in the text by way of an oral amendment, which Parliament, it is to be hoped, will approve. The Member States should subsequently set to work, and the Commission should see to it that sound work is carried out.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish the Finnish Presidency every success at the Helsinki Summit as this will conclude a range of important work undertaken during its term. With regard to the issues mentioned by the President-in-Office of the Council, the shape of the Union following enlargement raises no problems for this House, for the Commission proposal or for the Council of Ministers. On the issue of the Intergovernmental Conference, such an optimistic situation is not appropriate in view of the tour by the Finnish Prime Minister. It would be a pity to miss this opportunity of giving a boost to the project of European integration and we will regret not having taken due advantage of this occasion. I completely agree with Mrs Halonen’s assessment that it is absolutely essential to reaffirm the international presence of the European Union. This is particularly true in the fields of security and defence to which the Finnish Presidency – and this can be said with legitimate pride – has given a decisive boost with this historic meeting of Defence and Foreign Ministers. This is the first time that this has occurred in the history of the European Union. Furthermore, we must stress the need to consolidate the achievements made at the Tampere Summit, referred to by the previous speaker, on an area of freedom, security and justice. As mentioned by the President-in-Office of the Council, it is essential that we confirm and prepare the work of the Portuguese Presidency with regard to employment. We are at an all-time low in the short history of the euro so the Helsinki European Council should devote some time to the issue of the external representation of the euro zone. Mrs Halonen, you referred to the need for us to promote a more open, democratic and transparent European integration project. I noted with satisfaction the comment made by the President of the Commission on the presence of the European Parliament at the Intergovernmental Conference, but I would like you to say this as well. We cannot achieve a more open, transparent and democratic Europe if the European Parliament is not fully involved in the work of the IGC. I hope and pray that the European Council in Helsinki can give us a Europe which is more judicious, more united and much more community-spirited, and therefore much less intergovernmental.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President of the Commission, I would like to begin from where Mr Donnelly left off, the second stage of your mission – the work programme – because I believe that, aside from the collective and individual responsibilities, which I certainly believe are of the utmost importance, the work in the restoration of the Commission’s credibility and its productiveness will be judged by this work programme. This programme will be met with some apathy and reactions as regards the wording and the actual execution of it. In order to overcome all that, Mr President, originality and dynamism are necessary of which I hope you have plenty in reserve because many of us believe that these elements appear to have been lacking, judging by your speeches so far. Likewise, there have not been sufficient signs of a new attitude of mind emerging, which would be necessary to deal with the deepening confidence crisis facing Europe as regards not only the issue of unemployment but also the issue of security You made reference to the Balkans, Mr President. It is a good job that Europe understands the importance of the Balkans and I agree with you wanting to convey the urgency of the matter. You are right in saying that the Balkan states cannot import their conflict into Europe, but you are not right in distancing yourself from the problem by telling them that they must resolve the conflict themselves before we can accept them. Europe, Mr President, imported the Balkan problems the moment it decided, with the force of weapons, to find a settlement to those problems. And it is not only the Balkans, if we are to begin naming names. How is it possible that an applicant country, for example, can threaten to attack a Member State without being warned that attacking one Member State is tantamount to attacking all the Member States, just because there is no common European border. I hope that at the Intergovernmental Conference, Mr President, you will be able to propose measures for creating such a border and for instilling a greater sense of security into many of us who do not feel secure.

Political group: PSE
The amendments tabled during the vote on my report on social inclusion weakened its substance on significant points. In fact, of the 19 amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party , 12 of those that were approved sought to remove important aspects of the real strategy that needs to be developed to effectively promote social inclusion and to include the negative approach of defending temporary work, which runs counter to the promise and the idea of full employment. The removal of the points dealing with the following issues is particularly significant: - the importance of social transfers, notably old-age pensions, without which 41% of the European Union’s population would be at risk of living in poverty; and other social transfers without which, even if old-age pensions were maintained, the percentage would still be 26% of the population as opposed to the 18% currently in that position; - an assessment of the impact of monetary policies, including the Stability Pact, on social matters such as employment, poverty and social exclusion, equal rights and opportunities, and so on. Finally, it should be noted that other amendments were rejected, which has enabled important aspects of the report to be preserved. Hence my abstention from the final vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if we were to accept the suggestions made in this Chamber by speakers such as Mr Segni, for example, and hold one particular person responsible for all the evils of the media sector, we should somehow have to conclude that the deer and other animals which invaded the runway at Strasbourg airport today were, in actual fact, extras from the Mediaset networks which had been recruited and enlisted to prevent this debate from taking place! That is not the case! The matter we are discussing is so much more complex and problematic that we must rather be aware that the speed of technological progress is leading, particularly in the field of communications, to the development of new ways of transferring knowledge, new forms of peaceful coexistence of peoples and new lifestyles and mentalities. In other words, communications generate culture, and culture is transmitted via communications. One might say that all our lives are now locked in a communication mechanism requiring a complete reassessment of all our basic points of reference. The huge increase in information sources and the failure to distinguish between their levels of authoritativeness, the progressive replacement of interpersonal relations with a mediated approach and the expression of opinions on the basis of opinion polls which are not founded on fact, are all factors which ultimately lead to various forms of dissociation, which influence our very beliefs and lives. The recent events in Italy were not the result of this very complex issue of the media. Rather, what happened was that the left, which had controlled state television in recent years, went so far as to attempt to influence the last elections and, in its endeavours to hold the sword of Damocles over its political opponent’s head, put off the issue of regulating the media sector indefinitely and made it very difficult for the matter to be resolved. Absence of control and supervision has never brought guarantees or freedom, as many would have us believe. It ultimately fosters the indiscriminate use of extremely powerful tools which, if abused, have devastating effects on people’s consciences and society. I therefore call upon the Commission to be the guarantor of this principle of freedom and to propose an appropriate course of action to Parliament and the Council, which could, for example, be the subject of another Green Paper. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE