GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
In yesterday's Financial Times, Arthur Levitt, a former Chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission wrote 'Investors, public companies, accounting firms, stock markets and regulators around the world today face one of the great challenges for the global financial system's future: how to fashion an enduring system of comparable, uniform and high-quality financial reporting that is accepted just as much in Europe as it is in the US, and in developed countries as in emerging ones. It is a challenge born less out of crisis and more out of evolutionary progress'. He continues 'The explosive growth of markets and economies makes developing such a system an imperative. All agree that there is simply no other way to ensure the efficient allocation of capital on a long-term and global basis.' This proposal is part of the European Union's wider response to the challenges described by Mr Levitt and, in particular, it deals with the problem of relatively new types of financial instruments, for example, derivatives and hedge funds. This directive requires Member States to permit or require all or certain companies to adopt fair value, as opposed to historic cost accounting, where it is appropriate to do so and in the manner spelt out in the directive. It creates a flexible regime and allows Member States considerable discretion in line with the application of the principle of subsidiarity, according to the circumstances as they see it. It is intended as a first step towards establishing an accounting regime across Europe which meets the requirement of a modern global market place and which, in particular, will provide those who read company accounts with the kind of information they will want and should be entitled to know. The proposal in front of the House today, together with the amendments – all of which were agreed unanimously in committee – are the result of close collaboration between myself, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee, and the Council and Commission, in an effort to reach an agreed formulation which could enable this directive to be dealt with in a single reading. I believe that this work has been brought to a mutually satisfactory conclusion and I commend it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we see the reality of the situation all around us. If 23% of Europe’s population is over 65 years old today, this figure will have reached 40% by 2025, and the proportion of four working people to every retired person will have become two working people to every retired person by 2020. This demonstrates the pressing need to allow the development of supplementary self-funded high return pension schemes in the European Union to usefully supplement state contributory pension schemes. As we all know, our Member States are working towards ambitious structural reforms, but it is also up to the European Union to intervene in the area of pensions, particularly supplementary pensions, in order to facilitate the free movement of workers in the context of the single market, to establish a genuine single capital market and also to ensure that equality between men and women is respected. With this in mind, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has been concerned to reconcile the security and efficiency of supplementary pensions for future pensioners as it is true that the guarantee of a high level of security for beneficiaries encourages healthy and desirable competition between European pension funds. This is why our Committee feels that the proposal for a directive on Community prudential regulations applying to pension funds must be tabled and adopted as quickly as possible, bearing in mind our discussion today, with proper guarantees for the external and internal supervision of the funds concerned and for the calculation of their prudential commitment. Furthermore, in order to encourage the free movement of workers, we felt it essential to quickly improve the transferability and the acquisition of pension rights from supplementary schemes from different European countries. This is the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, what with the enlargement reports which are the subject of today’s debate, together with the Brok report and the debate on institutional reform, today can be described, without fear of exaggeration, as a day for celebrating Europe in the 21st century. The reports all contain many positive points and we can now safely say, enthusiastically and without fear of exaggeration, that it is time to move on to the next stage. The reports are steeped in optimism and the grumblers need to make way. We need to look at the wood, not the tree. History and politics are marching hand in hand. Now is the time to move up a gear. Now is the time for Europe to go forward and meet its destiny and put ideological flesh on the bones of enlargement. Allow me now to move from the general to the specific question of the last two islands in the Mediterranean which are island states, Cyprus and Malta, which have now set their cap at membership of the European Union. If any area of Europe is ready, they are, especially Cyprus. From this point of view, it is here that the logic of enlargement will be judged not only on the basis of economic or other criteria, but also on the basis of respect for more general principles which should govern our perception of the future of Europe, a Europe of peace, a Europe of the people, a Europe of states, a Europe of equality and a Europe which respects human rights. In this sense, I think that, if anything, it will be Cyprus on which Europe’s ability to look itself in the face politically will be judged. Cyprus and Malta will prove to Europe that it accepts enlargement on general terms, not for reasons of geographical symmetry, but in order to achieve the political integration of united peoples, united cultures and united prospects.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, PVC is the second most commonly used plastic. It poses significant environment and health problems over its entire life cycle. Those problems always go back to the same two causes: PVC contains chlorine, and requires the addition of a wide variety of hazardous additives in large quantities if it is to be functional. The scientific studies commissioned by the Commission highlighted a number of key hazards relating to PVC, in particular during disposal. Landfilling is a ticking time-bomb due to the release of hazardous PVC additives and the potential for dioxin formation during landfill fires. Incineration of PVC makes the problem even worse, as apart from the risk of dioxin formation the hazardous residues resulting from PVC incineration may even exceed the quantities of PVC put into incineration. Recycling cannot solve the problem as potential recycling rates under ecological criteria are projected to reach only 5% by 2020. The problem is set to get worse, as waste quantities will increase significantly over the next decades. At a public hearing organised by the European Commission last October there was a very strong and clear call for substitution of PVC. This call did not just come from environmentalists. It included a coalition of industry, waste-management, local and national authorities, environmental, health and consumer interests. There was very clear and strong support for the substitution of PVC. There is an obligation on the Commission and the EU to respect the wishes of the vast majority of the public. It seems to me that there is a huge amount of support for substitution, while only the PVC industry is reluctant. Whose interests come first? It has to be the interests of all those people that attended the Commission hearing. The report on substitution calls for the introduction of substitution policies for certain product categories. We think this is a very good starting point, but it should not end there. We would like to see it extended to all categories, not just to some.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, perestroika and glasnost used to signify change in a rigid structure. I think there are times when we could use a little more perestroika and glasnost in the structures of our administration, particularly where the Joint Research Centre is concerned. A report was compiled in 1998 investigating the Joint Research Centre. This report also contains remarks regarding the nuclear sector, ranging from the question of whether the personnel are qualified to whether our own European safety standards are being observed. The ghost of this report haunts our corridors precisely because it has not been published. That is not the way to go about things. If our aim is to develop a strategy for handling nuclear material then we must lay all our cards on the table. People could not therefore be more justified in demanding that the aforementioned 1998 report at last be published, and that it be made clear what lessons were drawn from it as regards the handling of nuclear material at the Joint Research Centre. We are indeed prepared, on the basis of a clear analysis and a clear inventory, to develop a strategy aimed at the degradation of dangerous waste accumulated over the years. But first we must have clarity. Glasnost and perestroika are what we need when it comes to handling nuclear material in our own installations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Lamy and others have spoken of the Seattle meeting as a failure but I still believe that, if the EU and the US in particular learn the lessons of the past few weeks, the meeting in Seattle could still go down in history not as a failure but as the moment when world leaders finally realised that they need a radically different approach to international trade. First, they must learn that rich countries can no longer get something for nothing. If they want rightly to link social and environmental concerns with trade they will need both to prove that their motives are not protectionist and to deliver substantial gains for developing countries in return. Those gains could include tariff-free access for all goods from the poorest countries, the abolition of tariff peaks and agreements to stop export dumping. Second, it is clear that trade deals can no longer be secretly stitched up between the more powerful WTO members. Developing countries have shown a new determination to resist such marginalisation. The playing field between the richer and poorer countries is anything but level. If you look at negotiating capacity alone, the EU and the US were present in Seattle with whole armies of lawyers and advisors. The poorer countries were there with very few. I have also heard – and I would be grateful to know if this is true – that 30 countries, members of the WTO, could not even afford to be at the meeting to negotiate. The WTO process needs to be made far more democratic and transparent. I believe that we need a forum to discuss proposals for radical reform with the environmental and development groups who have been working on this subject for a great many years. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. There are good proposals out there. We need to learn from them. Finally, WTO members must at last listen to the 1 200 non-governmental organisations from nearly 100 countries who signed a declaration demanding no further trade liberalisation until the social and environmental impacts of existing liberalisation have been addressed and the problems put right. The stalling of the talks in Seattle gives us an opportunity to do just that.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, infringements of the fundamental principles of food standards law provide a great deal of headline material in many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union. Although they involved a lot of distortion and scaremongering, reports played a significant role in preventing such occurrences from being forgotten. The breaches in the investigation of BSE which have become public knowledge in recent days represent setbacks for all those who have campaigned to introduce a high level of consumer health protection in food production, and I think they had had some of those already. It is precisely the great public interest in this subject, and the apparent avoidability of the most recent instances of human health being put in danger, that justifies the introduction of strict sanctions as asked for by the report, in order to finally stop new cases of BSE flaring up. The highest standards in food production should apply in the European Union. Such is the most significant statement in the White Paper on Food Safety. The legal framework this requires must, as I understand things, be allied to a recognised early warning system through the EU countries, so that suspicion that human health has been endangered will result in the products being designated and their manufacturers named in public. As a rule, public warnings are always desirable, above all when it is suspected that a product has been widely distributed, which is always the likely case in the never-ending cycle of food production. It makes sense to me that specific food producers should be publicly named and warned where, in future, there is the mere suspicion of danger through unhygienic production practices or basic materials. The widely-honoured principle is this: checks on animal feed are the preliminary stages of foodstuffs inspection. The report's demands are indeed far-reaching. Practical experience will show whether breach of a specific duty by the withholding of information should have the same consequence as fraud against the financial interest of the European Community. The whole importance of the report lies in the necessity of referring again and again to the need to abide by existing prohibitions and instructions. I wish to observe in conclusion that Mr Olsson's report is of contemporary relevance and shows close acquaintance with the present situation. I do not believe that it is a plan of campaign for the next BSE crisis.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I must congratulate Mrs Ainardi on her excellent work. Her report is part of a ‘rail package’ that seeks to promote the development of the rail sector through the creation of an integrated rail system. This would involve achieving the interoperability of the trans-European rail system, crucial to ensure that international traffic can flow freely. Until now, the fact that different countries have very different specifications and technical standards, that are often incompatible, has created difficulties in using rail transport. As a strong supporter of the railways, I think this is a deplorable situation. It has repercussions for both the protection of the environment and passenger safety. I therefore very much welcome the Commission’s proposal to attempt to coordinate the different TSIs (technical specifications on interoperability). That said, safety standards must never be harmonised to a lower level! We must also make it necessary to assess the expected benefits of each and every proposed TSI in terms of market share, traffic growth, environmental concerns, safety standards and social issues. Advocates of the concept of public service must keep an eagle eye on these issues, given the prevailing philosophy on this subject! - Savari report (A5-0441/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the situation in Burma is disastrous. Hundreds of thousands of people are living, without any real humanitarian aid, packed into refugee camps in Thailand, China and Bangladesh. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced into labour or displaced against their will. The political system is corrupt and repressive. The democratic opposition has been suppressed since it was elected on 27 May 1990, and more than 2000 people are in prison. Amnesty International condemns the institutionalised torture that takes place in these countries. All these human rights violations are crimes against humanity that need to be stopped and denounced in order to be definitively condemned. Who finances this regime besides the revenue obtained from the illegal sale of drugs? Well, there is TotalFinaElf, also present in Angola, Congo, Chad and Cameroon, and additionally found to be connected with the sinking of the Erika and in the accident in Toulouse. I think that this company, and this regime, should be boycotted. More than ever we need to support Burma’s democrats. The European Union should affirm that Aung San Suu Kyi is the only real chance for Burma and must take every possible measure as quickly as is possible to move this military dictatorship towards democratic transition.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, President of the Convention, I too have the honour of congratulating a predecessor for the impressive work he has done, but I cannot continue in the vein of Charles Aznavour and say ‘You are for me, formidable’. My group and our Liberal caucus in the Convention endorse your draft European Constitution. We commend the Constitution despite its insufficiencies because it represents a considerable step forward for Europe. The text before us is an endorsement of the Convention method as a way of reforming the European Union. A similar Convention should be set up if and when the time comes substantially to amend the Constitution. But to allow our citizens to understand the European Union, we must make a break from the era of changing the Treaties every five years in a Mao Zedong-style permanent revolution. As the Heads of State and Government prepare to inaugurate the Intergovernmental Conference on 4 October 2003, the message of the European Liberal Democrat group is this: stay true to the spirit of the Convention in your debates, and do not seek to re-open behind closed doors the difficult compromises which you agreed months ago. Where there are changes, be transparent, as urged by the Convention's President. Respect the contribution made by the European Parliament to drawing up this remarkable text by ensuring at least three representatives for Parliament at your working sessions. Time is short for the work of the IGC to be concluded in good time for the European elections. Let us use this time to sell Europe's new Constitution to our citizens, rather than reopening at length the debate. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, the financial and budgetary consequences of enlargement must be debated in the light of the fact that we are facing a moral imperative and an inalienable political priority, because this project of living together goes beyond the fields of business and finance. The difficulties do not come from the Spanish Presidency or from the Commission or from this Parliament. The Spanish Presidency has kept to the road map and is making every effort to unblock the unsettled matter of agriculture and to leave the timetable clear, in order to comply with the timescale proposed in Gothenburg. As has been pointed out, the countries that put obstacles in the way of a consensus to adopt a common position will have to explain why enlargement should take place not according to the established timetable but at a speed dictated by their interests. At these times, we must clear away doubts and help change a negative attitude, which is strongest in those countries which, right now, are blocking agreement in the chapter on agriculture and calling into question direct aids for agriculture, either through attempting to clear the financial horizon beyond 2006 or by questioning their inclusion in the Community acquis. The proposal which Parliament supports, following the Commission’s line, and which is contained in the Böge report, is balanced, complies with the acquis and is compatible with the budget ceilings set in Berlin. It includes highly positive aspects, such as support for the phasing-in model for including the new Member States in direct aid payments, remembering that they form part of the acquis, and the phasing-in of the structural operations, but this must be compatible with an effective absorption capacity of the new Member States. A few years ago, Madam President, the Eastern European countries were totalitarian dictatorships with planned economies. The changes that have taken place are so profound that we cannot allow ourselves to paralyse this march towards freedom just because some wish to ensure a reduction in their contribution to the Community coffers after 2006. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Beazley on his report. The dangers children and young people are exposed to today are very different to those we were exposed to at that age. TV and the Internet have undoubtedly contributed to this, to a large extent, because they fill youngsters’ heads with ideas that have very little to do with reality. A short time ago, a study was published in a Spanish newspaper, which stated that young people seeing, for example, a person throw themselves off the fourth floor of a building and yet run away unharmed or a person stop a speeding bullet with their bare hands without suffering any ill effects, contributes to many young people being unaware of the real danger of such situations. It is thought, furthermore, that such images put too many ideas in their heads and that this is, unfortunately, the cause of the increase in violence amongst young people and even children. Having said this, I would like to express my total support for the rapporteur when he calls on Member States to classify video games using self-regulatory mechanisms set up by the industry, and for them to establish ‘abuse departments’. I would also like, of course, to congratulate the Commission on its intention to carry out a study on the classification of films distributed to cinemas, shown on TV, and available on DVD or video. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to be aware that we cannot expect to have a world without violence when the adults of the future spend their time watching cartoons, films and news stories that are of an increasingly violent nature.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as you were informed earlier this week, I was in Scotland protesting against the Trident nuclear submarine base there and I was arrested. What is the situation concerning our immunity in other Member States? I understood that we could not be arrested in such circumstances. I have nothing against the Scottish Police. They were extremely courteous. They were aware of the concept of peaceful demonstration. Maybe they should train the police in places like Genoa and show them how to react to peaceful protests. What is the situation regarding our immunity? I was not breaking the peace, but trying to keep the peace by helping to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Secondly, in relation to my immunity: Does that not count when I am in another country?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Swedish Presidency, I am very pleased that this issue is being treated seriously by the Council, because it is extremely serious. Tens of thousands of women and girls are bought and sold in China every year, many of them to the West. The most popular areas are the poor provinces. In a new report, IOM has stated that the authorities in the West have met with quite serious difficulties when they have tried to get to grips with trafficking in women from China, and that this trafficking will increase dramatically if forceful measures are not employed. Trafficking in women is also rife within China. As a direct consequence of the one-child policy and the preference of Chinese families for sons, there are currently 70 million unmarried men in China. The International Coalition against Trafficking in Women reports on town councils buying hundreds of women who are then distributed to the single men in the town on the grounds that they are to be pitied. It is a very good thing that you formed this council after the Dover scandal. I wonder whether the expert organisations, for example IOM and the International Coalition against Trafficking in Women, will be included in this Council. In what way is the Council prepared, by using its contacts with China, to bring the matter of trafficking in women in China to the fore?

Political group: PSE