GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome the Karas report and the compromise amendments which we agreed. I was particularly pleased that the amendments seeking to abolish the lump sum payments that are very common in British pension funds were dropped. There are an awful lot of people in our countries today who are very concerned about their pensions. They feel that their pensions are under threat and insecure. Two of my constituents interrupted their holiday to come and see me last week in the European Parliament because they were concerned that what we would vote through would jeopardise long-held pension plans that they had made in the last 10 years or so. European legislation should not be adding to the uncertainty that people feel about their retirement. Extra products should enhance pension security, not undermine it. The compromises we reach today will go some way towards doing that and make sure that everyone in our countries retires on a decent pension.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as medical advances contribute to a steady ageing of our populations, the burden of pension provision throughout the Union becomes ever more costly. In the UK, as in the US, Chile and Singapore and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands, the burden on the state and succeeding generations has been significantly eased through the successful provision of supplementary second and third pillar private and occupational pension schemes, involving funds which grow to provide pension benefits following the retirement of the individuals. Both pillars have the advantage of being resistant to demographic change, and third-pillar portable schemes, in particular, which are not restricted to single companies, enhance labour mobility and choice for the investors and are much more affordable to small and medium enterprises. I welcome the fact that there is widespread recognition in this House to extend these supplementary schemes throughout Europe, even if there are disagreements over their precise nature and the way that the funds are to be invested. The problem needs to be addressed urgently in my opinion, with demographic pressures in recent years already generating deficits in the pay-as-you-go schemes in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It is even predicted that if the current trend continues some countries will be facing costs of up to 20% of their GDP in the next ten years for their pension liabilities. There are, of course, many risks with equity investments, but there are even greater risks to Europe with stagnant economies. Growing pension funds will dynamise our economies by providing large additional capital funds for investment not only in the EU, but also in developing markets, with greater prospects for future growth and returns on investment for our pensioners. In the case of defined contribution schemes, which give the investor a direct stake in the overall health of the national economy, there will also be a sense of participation in the country of that individual. The state scheme will of course remain the primary mechanism for basic provision in old age. But personal responsibility and choice will become the watchwords of success if the demographic challenges of the coming century are to be met successfully. That is why we should not be too prescriptive regarding the issues of biometric risks or investment strategies. We need a light-touch regulatory framework, with bilateral tax agreements, which will ensure the portability for those EU nationals wishing to work abroad throughout the Union, achieve a genuine single market in financial services and provide maximum choice to the European investor.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Structural Funds must contribute, even in the countries of the European Union, to combating existing gender inequalities in development policy. The negative effects of economic and social restructuring must take account of the specific characteristics of women’s dual role and policies supporting children and the elderly must also be considered by the current Member States and those preparing for enlargement. - Friedrich report (A5-0063/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs would like to join the others and extend its best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mrs Damião, the original rapporteur, and also congratulate Mr Hughes on his work as the deputy and much more. I think that we are talking in terms of adding the all-important, finishing touches to a directive that mainly deals with the position of employees. I am actually of the same mind as Mr Meijer, but I should like to repeat that it is relevant to all kinds of other categories of people who are involved, and we must certainly do something about this situation. These are my comments on Directive 83/477/EC. Like Mr Hughes, I am pleased that the impending deadlock, caused by the fact that Parliament's amendments had not been adopted, has been staved off thanks to an excellent contribution by the Council in the form of a common position and additional amendments that are somewhat more far-reaching. This actually means that we have made a great deal of progress and that asbestos of any kind, albeit by-products or production, has been banned, and this finally after 25 years. I conclude from this that we, given the incubation time of 25 years or longer, must apply the precautionary principle more forcefully. I would refer to a few areas we have done absolutely nothing about, such as electromagnetic waves, optical radiation, OPS, softeners and their use. Not only should we tackle these products, we should also consider the use to which they are put in production processes. This automatically leads to the need for legislation and directives in those countries, but also sanctions, hence also an amendment. In addition, the partners should be involved; this all seems to make perfect sense to me. Who, though, maintains law and order in practice? Surely it is the trade union officials, workers who sit on works councils, sometimes specialist services in large companies, and they need to be able to fall back on something. This is why we need to focus on this in our forthcoming Health and Safety programme. Finally, I should like to see a register drawn up of those buildings, and in that sense, I would endorse Mr Meijer. This is, in fact, what we had asked for, but the Council, because of difficulties, did not immediately accept it. We shall therefore liaise with the Council and try to reach either a solution in terms of national registers or a solution in a different way, so that we know of the buildings we are talking about. I am familiar with one of them: the Commission building, but that has been razed to the ground.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the adoption of the WIPO agreements was a very positive step in the direction of the global information society. The agreements crystallise the decades-old legacy of copyright, and they represent a precisely considered and balanced solution for the regulation of copyright and neighbouring rights. The entry into force of the treaties and their final form is, however, in addition to this recommendation, dependent on implementation by the parties themselves. In the United States the WIPO Treaty has already entered into force, having been enacted into law by means of the Digital Millennium Corporate Act and there they have managed to retain the delicate balance of the Treaty by means of this legislation. The EU too must proceed in its legislative work in accordance with what is agreed in the WIPO. It is worrying that the position adopted by the previous Parliament does not support this balanced WIPO system. The opinion on the copyright directive at first reading was very distorted, and, furthermore, the balance is moving in a harmful direction from the point of view of Europeans. The recommendations that have been made will not improve the status of culture in Europe, on the contrary. Parliament’s amendments would mainly improve opportunities for the media enterprises that are well established in the market to move their old, in excess of 80% market share to a new environment with rigid, excessive copyright regulations. I am not now speaking of Charlotte Cederschiöld’s recommendation, which is an excellent paper, but of the matters of copyright that the previous Parliament discussed. On one point of detail, I would like to thank Mrs Cederschiöld for having clarified, for example, the concept of so-called temporary copies in her opinion. There is no consciously adopted position in the WIPO Treaty on temporary copies. If these, which technically speaking are copies, were covered by the protection in force it would make the transfer of information – as the recommendation quite rightly states – expensive and complicated for no good reason. It would be as if the deliveryman had to pay a copyright fee whenever he carried a book to be read by the purchaser. The real benefit of culture is that art and knowledge can be transferred safely and easily from the artist directly to the user, the consumer. The new operational environment is, above all, a huge opportunity to create and spread culture in a different way than ever before. It is essential that the interests of all parties are taken into account. Parliament has tried to take account of this in its own recommendation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think this is such an important directive that there is very good reason here to speak passionately about this subject. It is one, as has already been said here many times, that concerns carcinogenic heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), quite small amounts of many of which damage the genotype of cells. The objective is to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of air pollutants on human health and the environment. It has also already been said here that this directive differs from the earlier daughter directives in that this one does not propose binding limit values. This has been justified by the fact that it is not possible in the short term to find cost-effective measures. One might also argue that, if limit values were set, they would then lead to cost-effective measures having to be found. We have many examples of situations where technical solutions have also been found once clear targets have been set and there is enough incentive to meet them. Monitoring and measuring together are an important element in this directive, and greater attention will have to be paid to the comparability of measuring techniques and results both nationally and at Community level. Effective monitoring will mean it will be possible to set new binding limit values as new technical applications are established. The measurements must, however, be carried out cost-effectively, taking different circumstances into account.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mrs Boumediene-Thiery‘s report addresses the problems that the Commission mentions in its report on how matters stand with regard to the application of provisions on residence rights. Yet, Mrs Boumediene-Thiery would like to see the scope of application of these residence rights extended to third-country nationals. The Committee on Petitions was asked to submit an opinion because it is a special committee that is directly concerned with the problems facing the general public. Unfortunately, there are still far too many infringements of the rights of EU citizens; I wholeheartedly agree on that score. Firstly, Member States are wavering when it comes to implementing Community law provisions on residence rights. In particular, subordinate authorities in the Member States are unfamiliar for the most part with the relevant provisions. Secondly, the problems associated with the recognition of diplomas are hugely restrictive. What use is the right of residence to me, if I do not have the right to exercise the profession I am trained in, in the host country? Thirdly, a failure to adapt the provisions on freedom of movement, and the social security rules, to the changing labour market, is causing problems. It is simply not acceptable that I could fail to be reimbursed for medical treatment abroad merely because I do not have the correct form. Mr President, we have provisions governing EU citizens’ right of residence in other Member States, but even now, they are not being fully applied. We are constantly hearing of cases where EU citizens are unable to reside in another Member State. Therefore, let us urge the EU Member States to implement the existing Community law provisions without delay, before we consider extending these rights to third-country nationals at any rate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the new cooperation Agreement signed in Cotonou represents an ideal opportunity to correct the deficiencies noted in previous measures and to clarify concepts and standards for action in specific situations in which we cooperate with the ACP Countries, for example, in the situation that gave rise to the Commission Communication which concerns us here and to the reports by Mr Van Hecke and Mrs Maes, that is, what should happen when an associate country is involved in armed conflict. Along the lines of what was said by the rapporteurs, we think the European Union will have to revise its programmes of aid to countries at war, amongst other reasons to prevent the funds allocated from being diverted to military activities. Also as a matter of principle, it should reconsider support to countries or regimes responsible for armed invasions of neighbouring countries or that spend a disproportionate amount of their resources on arms, if not on operations to repress the rights of the individual or minorities within their own population. We must bear in mind Article 11 of the new Treaty which states the European commitment to policies of building peace and preventing and resolving armed conflict. The dialogue between the opposing parties and the dialogue of the European Union with these same parties must be the key mechanism of these actions. Like Mrs Maes, we are perplexed at the paradoxical behaviour, in which we see how, since the creation of the European Union, millions of euros of aid have been approved for countries that are clearly involved in the military occupation of one or other of their neighbours. In this respect, the double standards with which aid policy is sometimes applied are unacceptable, and we are also concerned by the contradictions that can arise in the conduct of Member States, or some States, and the European Union itself. I think Parliament would benefit from greater transparency, coherence, information and control over these policies. Finally, we must understand that the reduction or freezing of our development aid for a specific country at war would often need to be accompanied by additional efforts in humanitarian aid to the people of the country, who are the main victims of such conflicts. Here again, the intervention of trustworthy NGOs is essential, enabling such programmes to be carried out with guarantees of success and effectiveness.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I was responsible for the research section of the part of the report by my fellow member, Gabriele Stauner, relating to internal policy. I was perfectly aware of its importance. However, what we could not foresee was that, with the vote on the overall report, outbursts very similar to those at the time of the refusal of discharge for 1996 would occur once again. To refer to the corresponding passages on research, I also make a statement on what have deliberately and disparagingly been referred to on occasions as old cases. Old cases are not the same as obsolete cases; they are an outstanding burden which the Commission must finally remove from our shoulders. The Court of Auditors highlighted a series of shortcomings in the research area in 1998. It complained about the pre-dating of contracts and a high overall error rate in payment audits due to incorrect proof of or information on costs, an error rate for which the Commission is perhaps not 100% responsible, but is at least 90% responsible. There is the old case of visiting scientist B and how his contract came into being. They also include the internal audit report drafted in 1997 on the area of jurisdiction of the former Commissioner for Research, Mrs Cresson. This report disappeared from the filing cabinet at the end of 1999/beginning of 2000. At the same time, there was the so-called European nuclear affair. Who then is going to be surprised that a link between the financial controller’s filing cabinet and the roaming plutonium was established at the end of 1999? We might be satisfied with some of the explanations that the Commission offers for these incidents. Having spoken on many occasions, I am pleased to say, with trustworthy Commission officials, I have the impression that they are ready and willing to make corrections. As are we. But mistakes have been made and the audit was organised as politely as when an auditor visits a company. However, it was the Court of Auditors that carried out the audit, an institution that has no form of personal interest in the matter and it is no good playing down the mistakes. If, nonetheless, the rapporteur takes the view today that these cases have not been solved properly, then I would like to side with her fully and unreservedly, as did the Committee on Budgetary Control with just one vote against. I call on the Commission to immediately give us satisfactory answers, which stand up in public. Then everyone will have a true picture. Questions can hurt. We asked them because mistrust and criticism have been spreading since the refusal of the 1996 discharge. But what matter are the results which will be presented on 15 May.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, on 20 October, 200 political prisoners went on hunger strike, which they intend to see through to the bitter end, in protest against the Turkish Government's policy of using ‘white’ isolation cells in order to undermine morale and break down prisoners' resistance. A further 800 prisoners are on hunger strike in sympathy. The prisoners' mothers are also on hunger strike. Solidarity is being expressed in numerous countries. I, personally, was horrified by the murder of a sympathiser on hunger strike by a detachment of the Grey Wolves in Rotterdam a few days ago. I have also written to you on the subject, Madam President. I should like Parliament to protest to the Turkish Government through you, through its presidency, calling on it to stop this particularly inhumane practice and not to isolate political prisoners.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I endorse the approach taken by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which has tabled a large number of amendments to the Council’s Common Position on the new rules for public contracts. We have already had many discussions in this House which have highlighted the need to support small businesses and the self-employed, along with the need for bureaucracy in tendering procedures to be reduced at the same time as transparency and comprehensibility are increased. Further economic and social progress in the Member States will depend on the fulfilment of both these important demands. Parliament’s demand for threshold values for public contracts – depending of course on the utility involved – to be increased is absolutely justified if we want (a) to reduce the very high costs involved in tendering on a Europe-wide basis, and (b) to give small and medium-sized businesses better opportunities in the European Union. It goes without saying that this heading includes the amendments aimed at reserving 10% of the expenditure on public contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises and at increasing the threshold values in the event of authorities being parties to contracts for the work to be carried out. Commissioner Bolkestein, I really cannot see what you are getting at! I think my group, along with the others, did the right thing in emphasising the importance of invitations to tender containing conditions relating to the management of the environment and guarantees of workers’ health and safety. In principle, this is in line with the sustainability for which the Council opted in Göteborg in 2001, with the economy, ecology, and the social dimension being given equal priority. That someone should argue against that is something that I find utterly baffling. This must apply not only to the way in which the main contractors meet the specified criteria; it goes without saying that it must be binding on the sub-contractors as well. If firms do not produce evidence of how they deal with finances and with their staff, their tenders should be rejected. I do, though, have doubts about compliance with data protection provisions when contracts are put out to tender electronically. We also support the demand that enterprises or persons who have been declared bankrupt or against whom court cases are pending should be excluded from tendering for public contracts. Rather than this being merely a permitted option, there should be binding rules on this. It stands to reason that exclusion from tendering for public contracts should also be extended to enterprises that had breached the conditions of tender on previous contracts. I also ask my fellow Members of this House, when plenary votes on Article 27, to adopt the version of the text included in the Council’s Common Position, for if we do not, then 98.5 % of German collective wage agreements would be excluded as a criterion in invitations to tender, which would put German workers at a disadvantage when competing for the award of contracts.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the harmonisation of social security systems would require harmonisation of the financing of social security, or, in practice, the harmonisation of taxation, not just with regard to its technical framework, but also its levels of taxation. We all know that consensus has still not been reached on this as far as policy is concerned, and that that is not going to come about quickly. For that reason I believe that a policy like this of taking small steps at a time is quite in order in this matter, and I would also ask how one aspect of this one-step-at-a-time policy is going, in other words the directive on a single market for additional pensions. The directive was supposed to have come from the Commission for a reading in the European Parliament in July, and now we have heard that it is probably being postponed until September. It may also be that it will not get discussed throughout the whole of the French presidential term. Could you give an update on this directive on a single market for additional pensions?

Political group: PPE-DE