GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, combating social exclusion is a political desideratum we can all support, but what is to be understood by social exclusion and how is it best to be combated? What must the EU’s role be? It is the answers to such questions that we shall find in this programme, designed to promote cooperation on the part of the Member States in combating social exclusion. The idea is that all interested and concerned parties should be involved in a type of work in which the individual countries describe the extent of social exclusion and their efforts to combat it. This will form the background against which we shall acquire a more common framework of understanding, for the concept of social exclusion is not so simple to define. When we think of the long-term unemployed – young as well as old – do we not think of physically or mentally handicapped people, of the mentally ill and of the poor and people with limited means? No doubt we each of us have our own particular ideas about what the concept should cover. What we lack is a common definition. The Commission experimented with a definition in its consultation document for the Lisbon Summit, proceeding on the basis that the excluded are those who have an income of less than 60% of average earnings in the country concerned. The governments of the Member States did not accept this definition, which is also rather simplistic and unduly bland. We need a more detailed description of the problem areas. The very open approach adopted by the Council to the issue is, in my view, quite correct. There is a need to gather statistics, prepare analyses and, by means of conferences and other devices, create greater common appreciation of what we understand to mean by social exclusion. With regard to the actual report, Mrs Figueiredo wants to see the word ‘poverty’ introduced into the legislative text. This is something to which my group is generally opposed for technical reasons, namely the issue of what the basis would be in terms of the Treaties. We recognise, of course, that poverty is a source of social exclusion, as is also stated in the text. I believe we are all agreed about that. Parts of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party also have reservations about increasing the appropriation and inserting a reference to the focus group into the legislative text, but we are otherwise able to support Mrs Figueiredo’s report.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I congratulate Mrs Rothe. Renewable energy is by far the largest source of energy currently in use in the world. How else do we see where we are going during the day? More people use firewood than any other fuel. But tonight we are talking of extending the use of renewable energy. I am going to repeat three of our demands. Clarity is essential as we put forward our point of view to the Council. We want: binding targets, not indicative cut targets; a rational definition of renewable energy – energy from waste, which is to be incinerated anyway, is a good idea. But mixed household waste; old paint brushes, polystyrene packaging and discarded plastic toys are not renewable energy. Another directive is needed for energy from waste, as Mrs Rothe suggests. Thirdly, we want a reasonable and therefore a longer period of certainty in which renewable energy can continue to receive compensation for the external costs to society which its use avoids. Let me finish with one very startling fact. The United Kingdom could generate four times its power requirements from offshore wind alone – four times its power requirements! Colleagues, this directive makes sense. Commissioner, thank you for your efforts. I hope you will support ours.

Political group: PSE
In spring last year, together with the Council, we adopted the Electronic Commerce Directive which is due to come into force on 17 January 2002. The pillar of this Directive is the country of origin approach. When the report before us was discussed in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the first time, I was surprised to find that some members of the relevant Committee wanted to call this country of origin approach into question again for online financial services. Yet this is quite absurd. If the European Parliament and the Lisbon European Council have set a deadline of 2005 for establishing an integrated market in financial services, we cannot afford to adopt incoherent legislation or keep re-examining decisions which have already been taken, unless we have very good reason to do so. This applies not only to some Members of this House but also to the Council, whose vote last Thursday on the Directive on Distance Marketing of Financial Services I greatly regret. We opted for the country of origin approach – so we should now apply it in a targeted and coherent fashion. I would also like to join the rapporteur in congratulating the Commission on its initiative in establishing the European Extrajudicial Network (EEJ-NET) and the Financial Services Complaints Network (FIN-NET). Simple, cost-effective, non-judicial procedures for cross-border redress can only enhance consumer confidence in the development of cross-border financial services. Naturally, consumers must be made aware of the existence of these networks, and I therefore also support the proposal that all websites providing online financial services should advertise these networks. – Berger report (A5-0310/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
This is a very uncontentious, uncontroversial report except for just one single point, which involves everybody who is listening. The proposal is to develop a computerised image archiving system to help detect forged travel documents. I imagine that we all agree that is worth doing. So what is the single point of controversy? It is whether this decision is going to be made behind closed doors in Brussels by officials and ministers, or whether there will be parliamentary scrutiny. Fifteen national parliaments cannot do so, because it is a European proposal and this task will fall to us if to anybody. Now the history of this proposal is that in January of this year, the Commission put forward the same proposal and said its purpose was to detect documents brought in by illegal immigrants. The proposal lapsed when the Amsterdam Treaty came into effect in May. It has now been retabled by the German Government, as a national government is entitled to do, under the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the problem is that the German Government says its purpose is to deal with I quote 'crime' and leaves out the word immigration. Why? Because under the Amsterdam Treaty, immigration questions are transferred from the third pillar to the first pillar and become the responsibility, for the first time, of Parliament. However, criminal matters remain in the third pillar and we have no area of scrutiny, no responsibility at all. Therefore, the German Government in my submission is seeking to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of its proposal. The committee did not like that. The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms invited the Finnish Presidency and the German Government to come and answer our questions about the proposal. The Finnish Presidency replied in a letter to the committee that it would not come, it would not answer our questions. However, it did say that we could ask put questions in plenary. Well, here we are in the plenary – where is the Council of Ministers? Everybody can see that the seats are empty except for one charming lady in grey who is an official and is not allowed to speak. But I hope she will take away this message. The fact that the German Government has sought to avoid parliamentary scrutiny altogether by keeping this under the third pillar and the fact that the Finnish Presidency has not even turned up to answer our questions either in committee or in plenary is, I am sorry to say, a great stain on the reputation of the Finns, who previously had a wonderful reputation for openness and democracy. I am also very sorry that they are not here to answer my accusation. To conclude, the committee has voted to change the legal base so that this matter comes back under the first pillar, because this proposal is primarily about detecting forged documents carried by illegal immigrants. I am asking everyone who is here to vote tomorrow morning to support the committee, to establish parliamentary control over this new area of policy, which is our remit under the Amsterdam Treaty. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Rail transport today stands at the heart of the public service deregulation and liberalisation projects being implemented by the European Union. According to the conclusions of the Jarzembowski report, the revision of Directive 91/440 throws the door to privatisation wide open by proposing that infrastructure management and the provision of transport services be separated and that every undertaking be given access to infrastructure in the medium term, the objective being to open up all freight and passenger transport to the markets and to competition. The approach taken in the Jarzembowski report is to bring the management of railway undertakings into line with private sector management as much as possible and to introduce the pressure of competition. It uses shortcomings in the operation of the public service as a pretext and highlights the superior performance of the private sector on the basis of imperfect comparisons which fail to take account of all the factors and all the missions that have been accomplished. The logic behind the Jarzembowski report will inevitably lead to a deterioration in safety standards, poorer quality services, a reduction in services to customers and a loss of social rights for employees. This report turns its back on what the European public really needs: a public service that is coordinated and harmonised at European level, which could guarantee a high standard of efficiency, safety and equity for employees and users alike, right away. This is why, unable as I am to accept either the status quo or the forward march of liberalisation, however progressive and well-planned, I have voted against the Jarzembowski report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have nothing further to say to the Council. The previous speaker has quoted me from the last committee meeting and said it all! Why does the Council find it so hard to work with us in creating an area of freedom, security and justice? I find this question more and more worrying. Allow me to try and elucidate it a little from my point of view. The establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice hovers at the interface between the constituent elements of national sovereignty. The police and judicial policy are quite clearly elements of sovereignty, in other words sensitive political areas in the Member States, and shifting the interface of these and communitising these policies, i.e. delegating powers from the national capitals, from Lisbon, Berlin or Paris, to Brussels represents a transfer of power. Of course it is very, very difficult to break away from the executive forms which have been handed down to us, even if we recognise that police cooperation is necessary; we can only fight international crime at European level. So we have to draw our conclusions and say that we need legal and organisational communitisation of the instruments available. As a result, the governments which need to do this and which recognise that need, also realise that, in implementing this, they are taking away their own powers. Then there is the European Parliament, which is also complicated. In the final analysis, however, we must find a way forward, because if we carry on as we have in the past, and with last year’s experience, then what will happen is that the security debate and the debate about citizens’ rights will be marginalised in the national parliaments as a result of making it a half national, half European structure. It has not quite taken off in the European Parliament and the Council meets behind closed doors. If the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice is kept secret, then we shall not win the citizens over to it. In other words, the stability of democracy is at stake if we discuss it. This is why I frequently get so worked up, but not over the Council of Ministers. Generally, they too are elected Members of Parliament: Mr Gomes, Mr Costa, Commissioner Vitorino, in principle we are all in the same boat. However, I should like to make an appeal to the Council apparatchiks. The following principle applies: He who prepares decisions, in this case the Council apparatchiks, anticipates the decisions, which is why the Council apparatchiks should demonstrate more democratic spirit. (Applause) I should just like to mention another aspect briefly because I do not have much time. Scoreboard sounds like skateboard in German. I say therefore that we need a timetable which stipulates what must be implemented, when and by whom. This Vitorino plan is what we need: clear, precise projects with a clear, defined timetable. Mr Vitorino, whom I would like to thank for his speech, can give us that, provided that he has the necessary financial and human resources. Let us give him those resources, then he can get on with his job and we all stand to gain.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the British Conservatives i.e. the do not support the idea that the proposed European Union constitution as discussed currently at the IGC in Rome is merely a tidying-up exercise. We believe it significantly alters the balance of power between Member States and the European Union institutions. We believe it is one more stage in the process of setting up a federal super-state with its flag, currency, army and now constitution, rather than a simplifying treaty basing itself on a unique supranational creation between sovereign Member States. We are concerned at the new, high-profile role of the Council President and the proposed Foreign Minister and EU legal personality, which will enhance the perception that the EU is a de facto state and will shortly be demanding membership of the UN Security Council. We are opposed to the passerelle clauses which jeopardise our veto rights over taxation, social security and, most worryingly, CFSP, which includes security and defence. Theoretically, it becomes possible for a new British Government to be out-voted over the deployment of its own troops already committed by a previous administration. We have also seen concessions over a separate planning headquarters for autonomous EU operations, which will play into the hands of isolationist US strands who will be happy to see Europeans go it alone as they question the need to keep the US tied into NATO, an organisation which in my view has served us well for so long. We reject the Charter of Fundamental Rights - with its vague rights to jobs, health and social security - becoming legally binding. It is a recipe for the activism of the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice in its agenda to enforce the social market economy and undermine the Thatcherite economic reforms of the 1980s which made my country a magnet for foreign direct investment. Lastly, we are adamant that such major constitutional changes require a full public debate in all the Member States. With particular reference to my country, I call upon Prime Minister Blair to allow the British people a say through a referendum on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Group can never approve of the death penalty, wherever in the world it is imposed. It is, of course, that much more repugnant when journalists are in danger of being executed just for doing their job. In January, the newspaper Frontier Post published a reader’s letter, following which the newspaper’s staff were taken into custody and accused of blasphemy. These individuals’ lives are now at risk. Fundamentalists have set fire to the newspaper’s offices in Peshawar. This event is a tragic illustration of developments in Pakistan where freedom of expression and human rights are not respected. The country is now becoming ever more marginalised in the world community. The Islamic laws, like the military’s support for the Taliban régime in Afghanistan, are creating alarm. The situation in Pakistan is very disquieting. What does the Commission intend to do in order to support those groups which are working to promote human rights and to establish the principles of the constitutional state?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by personally congratulating the rapporteur on her work and the exhaustive nature of her proposals in the job-creating service sector. Some of those proposals may of course find greater support than others. As a whole, however, they will remain for me a major contribution to the matter at a time when a large number of people are hard hit by unemployment and when insecure jobs and contracts are proliferating. For all that, to make things clear, after those personal congratulations, as spokesman for the Confederal Group of the , I have to express our reservations about the constant reference to competition, the market and its rules and also our disagreement with an over-strict application of the principle of mutual recognition in a sector that also covers public services and services of the social economy. Neither must it be forgotten, and I will be brief on this point today, that we do not consider the de-industrialisation of Europe to be inevitable, especially since, in terms of jobs, it is and will be increasingly difficult to compensate for the disappearance of industrial jobs by jobs in the service sector. Having said that and pointed it out, it is very important to note, as you did, Mrs Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, the importance of this service sector, just as it is important to identify the potential and the conditions for job creation. It is even more necessary for us to say what the real needs for services are. It is obvious in the matter of care, for children and infants, for the disabled and the elderly. For these, the service sector is essential for maintaining full citizenship irrespective of age, physical condition or health. But at this stage I want to say equally clearly that there is a need for legal, legislative or contractual controls in order to avoid abuses that result in precariousness such as exists in the US system. That is why we must upgrade the existing professions in the service sector in order to offer quality jobs with correct remuneration and working conditions. We must increase the quality of this new form of employment, part-time working as it happens, ensuring that the same high level of protection and job security is guaranteed to all workers and improving the working conditions of women. We must close the pay gap between men and women and the differences in the level of access to employment and job promotion. Finally, we must increase cooperation in the fight against undeclared work. Our rapporteur and the members of our committees have worked well. And while, like the majority of my group, I do not think that the implementation of these measures will solve all the fundamental problems of work and employment, I am, Mr President, personally in favour of every form of improvement, provided those improvements are real.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the European Commission, the Lisbon strategy, the vital tool needed to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, is perhaps more topical today than ever before. The social repercussions of possible military intervention in Iraq and its impact on the European economy are giving great cause for concern. Just what is it within the Union that ties it to outside developments? According to the snapshot presented by the Commission, things are not so rosy when it comes to the open method of coordination between the Member States at all levels within the Union. For example, there has been too little progress towards the objective of sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion which we set in 2000. Some Member States have completely failed to meet targets for employment and competitiveness, with the result that the word now is that we shall not achieve the target set by the Union in the Lisbon strategy. We therefore need to review what has been done and examine everything left on the to-do list, especially in the Member States which have fallen short. Again on the subject of sustainable development, we need to plug the gap between the announcements we make and the legislative tools we provide for protecting the environment and public health and we need to mainstream the environmental dimension in all Union policies. With pressure from both the Lisbon process and the process of reviewing the Union Treaties and, of course, globalisation, we urgently need to apply sustainable development within the context of European integration. However, what I want to focus on and highlight once again is this: I think, no I believe that the European Union is lagging behind in science and technology, especially biotechnology. Without scientific and technological progress and innovation we shall be unable to meet the challenges – the nutritional, medical, environmental and socio-economic challenges. Science and technology are the key to dealing with the major problems that beset human society. This has always been a basic element in the history of man and it still is today. Scientific, technological and related research, education and training are therefore non-negotiable. And in my opinion, Mr President-in-Office, you should take decisive action to promote research in science and technology, as the President of the Commission said, because it will, I think, turn out to be the most important tool in achieving the Lisbon policy, strategy and programme. IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICHVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE