GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our reservations about Greece’s accession to EMU are not a matter of principle; they are based on actual facts, as regards both EMU in general and the Greek economy. As far as EMU in general is concerned, we are in favour of real economic and monetary union. Unfortunately, this union is only monetary, not economic. It is MU, not EMU. We know that EMU was created prematurely for political reasons which date back to the events of 1989 and 1990, which is why the child, the euro, has been delivered early and is languishing in an incubator. This is the opinion expressed by the Nobel prize-winning economists Friedman, Tobin and Modigliani. The creation of EMU was not preceded by an agreement on the economic policy which the Member States had to follow. Only now are the Commission and Council trying to outline common policies for certain economic problems such as unemployment and competitiveness. But the road is long and full of adventures, as the poet says. The Goebbels report tells us that Parliament’s reply cannot but be a political one and assures us that Greece’s accession to the euro zone does not involve any political risk. However, the report adds that there are economic risks and that they are greater in the case of Greece than in the case of other countries belonging to the euro zone. We agree. There is no danger to the economies of the other 14 Member States. Of course, I have trouble understanding how anyone can distinguish so easily between political and economic risks, but we shall let that pass. As far as Greece is concerned, our reservations concern the economic risks mentioned in the report. The sole aim of the economic policy pursued by Greece over recent years has been to satisfy the convergence criteria. Efforts have focused on improving indicators, not real economic quantities. The competitiveness of the economy has not improved and unemployment continues to rise. The structural changes needed have not been carried out and privatisation has been presented as the new panacea for development and prosperity. Wage differentials have been sacrificed to indicators and are increasing, and, as a result, the figures are doing well while the people are suffering, however. In all honesty, the Goebbels report says that, as regards convergence, all EU governments are required to produce results but are free to choose the means of achieving it. It is therefore the Greek government’s choice of means which we object to. The means chosen were neither economically suitable nor socially just. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In joining EMU, we are jumping in at the deep end and hoping for the best.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Daul and Mrs Lulling that, in debates on the Rules of Procedure, you must always bear in mind that there are also tactical and strategic aims coming into play. It is no different for you than for those colleagues who tried what they did. For the first time this morning I joined in the request for the quorum to be established. I am a supporter of Strasbourg and a supporter of Fridays. However, I am of the opinion that those who wish to ensure that the work of Parliament continues to be carried out should also be present. I therefore thought to myself that a warning shot was in order; what then happened I thought went too far and I did not want to fall into line because I thought that it was about Strasbourg and Fridays. For that reason, I did not go along with it any further. But the fact that those delegates did what they did you have to grant them. You then have to respond accordingly. The Rules of Procedure, and I would like to pay my respect to the President here, were sensibly interpreted this morning with great composure and great calm. Matters proceeded as was established. The votes which were carried out are proper votes. They are no less valid because only a few delegates participated. I consider that, by exhorting our colleagues, and also the Groups, to be present, we should try to rescue these Friday debates and these Friday votes and to bring about a positive outcome.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, LEADER I was an outright success due, in particular, to the great flexibility of the administrative management between the Commission and the local operators. It is, I think, regrettable that the Commission could not make a similar assessment of LEADER II, regarding the quality of the projects, the quantity of appropriations spent and, most especially, the demotivation of some local operators in the face of the administrative and financial unwieldiness they encountered. I am pleased to see, however, that under LEADER+, new resources have been allocated to helping rural territories to develop their potential and to implement the objectives of local and sustainable development. I feel it is important to put special emphasis on trying out new ways to raise the profile of the natural and cultural heritage and to strengthen the economic environment, in order to promote employment. The time is now right, I think, to consider including the exchange of positive development experience in the scope of transnational cooperation. It is interesting to note that all rural areas may be eligible for LEADER II. Nonetheless, if the opportunity for Member States to determine the areas, within the scope of this initiative, remains available, then the Commission will have to ensure a certain focusing of resources and prioritise projects in the less prosperous areas. There must, of course, be transparency regarding the selection criteria for projects and local action groups. I also feel there are grounds for ensuring, in particular, that the financial channels of States or local authorities are not behind the delays in payment which may have caused some LAGs to become bankrupt under LEADER II.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I will use this brief intervention to support the amendment tabled by Mr McCormick, which I believe has the merit, in this case, of having pinpointed the fact that the principle of subsidiarity, besides being a legal principle and, perhaps, besides being a theological principle, is certainly a principle of great existential importance, which is to say that it can immediately be related to the daily lives of our citizens. What in fact is the state, or in any case a governmental body, if not the fruit of a pact for freedom between the citizens? In this sense, if there has been a pact for freedom, the state is the guarantor of any attempts that its citizens make to meet their own needs, it is not the master of them. If it is a guarantor and not a master, it immediately follows that in the structure created by Mr Wuermeling, under which powers would be devolved to the Member States in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, what should subsequently be guaranteed is that an identical process must also be followed by these same Member States. Observance of the principle of subsidiarity should therefore be guaranteed right down to the smallest communities, to autonomous units, to intermediate groups, social groups, families and citizens who are the only true sovereign power when it comes to legislative and administrative action. It is for this reason that I would like to state my support for Amendment No 1 to Paragraph 11a, tabled by Mr McCormick, which would seem to reproduce and propose in a sound and upright manner an interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity that is not theological but constitutional, as it should be.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the last 10 years there have been several international conferences on the theme of access to clean drinking water. We know that in many areas there has been failure, not least in the commitment to ensure that everyone would have access to clean water by the year 2000. In 10 years the number of those suffering from a shortage of clean water has instead increased by half a billion, the number at present being approximately 1.7 billion. One in four people in the world drinks dirty water. The situation is compelling decision-makers to take a serious look at whether the measures taken have been at all the right ones. Universal, equitable and non-discriminatory access to clean water is a basic human right. A shortage of water is a self-evident cause of the spiral of poverty. Experience has shown that it is impossible to leave the problem of water shortages to the market to resolve. The invisible hand of the market is hardly likely to hand a glass of water to someone who is thirsty. We also have to recognise the fact that privatisation normally means higher prices for water and purification services, which naturally cause the greatest problems for the poorest people. Because access to water has been established as a basic right it should affect the way we think about it. Water resources should not be seen as one country’s private property, but as a shared global resource. It must be said, however, that if water is treated as a free commodity to be shared, it weakens the potential for organising a highly functional water supply. For that reason, the flexible practices called for in the amendments in order to mix the public with the private are needed, as long as a person’s right to water is considered to be something basic that can never be given up. Mr Lannoye’s report intelligently highlights the connection between access to water and purification and hygiene. Around 6 000 people, mainly children, die each day of infectious diseases, often caused by poor hygiene. It would be a fundamental error to view water, sanitation and hygiene as separate issues. Now, more than anything, we should increase those domestic and international resources that can be used to improve the water supply and sanitation in city slums and shanty villages as well as in rural areas. Of key importance is linking sanitation with the water supply, which will not succeed if there is no substantial additional investment on the part of those responsible for the water supply. We must, moreover, develop people-oriented technology for households as a solution to water and water purification problems. I wish to express my support for Amendment No 19, which requests the application of a water-debt trade-off, so that debts can be cancelled and the money used to fund basic water purification infrastructures.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I really regret that the representatives of the presidency are not present as we discuss this very important issue. Our ageing European society calls for clear strategies to ensure the adequacy of pension systems. Several measures, such as increasing the retirement age of an ever healthier population and thus increasing the size of the active workforce, are a crucial step in improving the ratio between the active working population and retired persons. But it is evident that other measures have to be implemented as well. The importance of occupational pensions schemes will rise in many Member States. The European citizen would benefit from single market occupational pension schemes. The variety of occupational pension schemes and providers would be improved. The citizen and his employer could thus choose the most successful and best suited scheme, bringing the best interest rates, while offering full security of investment. More and more Europeans work for relatively short periods of time in another Member State. They are still disadvantaged when it comes to their occupational pension schemes. Tax obstacles stand in the way of a fully functioning single market. The Commission communication sets a strategy to resolve these obstacles that are a clear disincentive to individuals who wish to contribute to pension schemes outside their home Member States, as well as pension institutions that wish to provide pensions across borders. I welcome the Commission communication as a first step towards a solution of this issue. Like Mr Pronk, I wholeheartedly support the so-called EET model, as outlined in the Commission communication and in our committee's report. The EET model means that pension inputs are exempted from taxation. The pension scheme as well would be exempt and only the output would be taxed. This system serves to defer taxation to the moment the pension becomes payable, thus avoiding double taxation without the need to harmonise the level of taxation and without thus interfering in the Member States' taxation practice. Tax issues are in the hands of the Member States. Like our rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg, who has done an excellent job with this report, I also wholeheartedly support the method of open coordination. It is the only way we can achieve the results which our fellow European citizens need. I strongly urge the Member States to work quickly to achieve the necessary results for the benefit of our ageing population. Although we in the European Parliament may for the time being unfortunately not have the legislative means to decide on these issues, I can assure you that we follow them very closely and will do our best to achieve a common market for occupational pension schemes.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the balance of opinion in my group was that we should not express ourselves by way of a resolution. This is partly because we have not had sufficient chance to reflect, but also because we believe it is wrong to say that when there is a major debate, Parliament will not express itself. I believe that Parliament will express its views vigorously tomorrow even if there is no resolution. So I do not believe that we will be deemed to have been silent; I suspect that the presumption will be quite different when we are finished.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I must say that I am incredibly pleased with Mrs Klaß’s report. I am not among those who are so terribly concerned about all the E numbers and additives. There is, however, a group of people who lead extremely difficult lives, namely those who genuinely have food allergies. I think it is only right to show solidarity with them. As I say, I am extremely pleased that the rules are now to be very much tightened up so that everything that is allergy-causing is to be listed. It is also very good that we are to obtain strict rules to the effect that all ingredients are to be listed on a decreasing scale. My group will support all three of these reports.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would agree with much of what we have heard already in the debate this evening. I, like many others here, will remember the enthusiasm and political excitement with which this convention was adopted, how many world leaders were keen to be seen with young people and to talk in glowing terms of the future they were offering. I reflect with considerable sorrow at the dying-away of many of those fine words. One of the main concerns of that convention is the right for children to live in peace. People have already referred to some 300,000 under-18 year olds recruited as soldiers throughout the world. Some of them are in our own Member States where they have no right to vote for the governments which decide their futures. We see many children working in conditions of slavery and forced labour and we would urge all European Union states to ratify the ILO Convention dealing with these issues. We would also urge Members States at the next IGC, to adopt a legal base to promote and protect the rights of the child as defined in the United Nations Convention. We also need to take responsibility for the state of the world in which those children are growing up, not least the environmental conditions under which many of them have to suffer. It is essential that we meet and surpass the targets that we have set ourselves to combat such things as climate change. For far too many children, clean water, safe food and adequate shelter are still a dream, even for many in the so-called developing world. We would also argue that we need to change the priorities of our international financial institutions so that priority may be given to safeguarding the environment and providing health care and education rather than open markets. Lastly, cancelling the debt of the world’s poorest countries would also help the young people of those nations considerably.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our group has tabled four requests for separate votes. Three of them have the same goal, namely to delete the phrase ‘either [or ‘or’] to withdraw its draft’ from three different places. These are requests for separate votes concerning Amendment No 3 and Amendment No 10 and a second request for separate vote concerning Amendment No 11. Whatever your decision, ladies and gentlemen, I would consider it logical, although I do not know whether this is compatible with the Rules of Procedure, for a single vote to apply also to the other two in order to ensure the coherence of the text.

Political group: PPE-DE
Although my vote was in favour of the Markov report, I wish to draw attention to the fact that paragraph 11, in supporting the assignation of the entire responsibility for the structural funds to a single authority and a single minister in each Member State, may be inconsistent with the arrangements in Member States that have federal or devolved administrations. I hope that the paragraph will be interpreted in a manner appropriate to these situations.

Political group: ELDR
Because labour is a significant cost factor in the production of goods and even more in the supply of services, one sees, time and time again, that employers try to reduce their obligations. It is increasingly common for dishonest employers and those in difficulties not to settle the wage bill when the work has been carried out. Employees then do not receive their due or can only obtain it after having recourse to the courts. The European Commission’s proposal omits to lay down in what cases one can speak of an employer, an employee, or wages owing. Rapporteur Bouwman quite rightly proposes also bringing small independent sub-contractors, homeworkers and domestic staff within the scope of this regulation, so that there are no loopholes if a malicious employer stops paying wages. The setting up of national guarantee funds will be compulsory, and they must be kept separate from employers’ operating capital. All wage claims by employees, including overtime pay, holiday bonuses and severance payments, must be covered and there must be no ceiling on payments. This is one of the better proposals, which would mean that the European Union would finally be doing something to help employees. In recent years most proposals have served mainly employers’ interests. - Foster report (A5-0415/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commissioner has just explained the details of the Commission’s thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. Clearly, the proposals amount to a statement of the actions the Commission intends to take in the near future. To this end, it will either introduce measures of its own or submit legislative proposals to Parliament and to the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Essentially, this report seeks to respond to people’s concern about the possible negative effects of pesticides. They can affect human health, animal health and also the environment. I would stress that this is mainly the case when they are not used in a rational or legal manner Nonetheless, the Commission’s proposal contains significant gaps. A great number of comments have therefore been made. The executive arm of the Community should take these into account when it comes to spelling out specific measures. I would like to highlight what I believe to be the most relevant of the comments received. Firstly, the Commission’s proposal does not take account of the different problems encountered in using pesticides in different regions in Europe. The fact that the report does not differentiate between the regions of Europe will lead to false conclusions when the approach is applied in different areas. Secondly, it is not clear whether the Commission considers that organic farming should be the future model for agriculture to be applied throughout the European Union. Ladies and gentlemen, we should de-mystify organic farming. I do not wish to remind anyone of the case of nitrophenol. Natural products and natural processes tend to be mistakenly equated to environmental protection. Petroleum, strychnine, hemlock and even anthrax are natural substances, but it is unacceptable to introduce these into the environment. Organic farming uses natural products but this does not mean it is the most desirable form of farming or the most desirable in every case. There is no mention of Community policy on integrated production in the Commission’s proposal either. This is an important type of production that cannot be overlooked, especially as regards the use of plant protection products. The proposal does not take account of our ability to significantly reduce the use of pesticides through the use of genetically modified organisms. This would of course require fully transparent regulations to ensure there would be no negative repercussions. Lastly, I would like to highlight another issue the Commission has failed to deal with. There is no reference to the approach to be followed in establishing appropriate indicators to measure the effectiveness of the different courses of action to ensure the objectives set out in the Commission’s document are met. Ladies and gentlemen, all these provisions should also apply to the candidate countries and to all countries trading with the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, I would like to offer a brief reminder. CONNECT saw the light of day with the 1999 budget, as a preparatory action covering 1999 to 2002. In fact, it was my baby. I am therefore rather surprised – if your words have been translated properly – that no assessment has been carried out until now, because CONNECT should have begun and did begin, I am sure, at the beginning of 1999. I am also sure, Commissioner, that there is currently not a single official or agent of the Commission dealing with the operation of the CONNECT programme, nor a single spokesperson for those organisations which are currently implementing projects. I would be grateful if you could tell me how this situation can be reconciled with the reply that you have given.

Political group: PSE