GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Peijs, I would first like to wholeheartedly thank the rapporteur for her work and for her clear explanations, which once again spelt out to us what this directive is all about. I would like to add that this directive covers the whole aspect of the creation of an internal market for financial services and is therefore to be welcomed, as we still have a great deal to do to strengthen, improve and consolidate this market and to remove existing blockades. The common position has succeeded in bringing the rights of insurance undertakings into line with the legitimate interests of creditors. The common position is well balanced and, what is more, it is the result of lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise. The Council has allowed eleven years to elapse. In view of fact that the procedure has been allowed to run on for far too long, a speedy approval of the common position would be an important step in the interest of creditors and insurance undertakings alike. To conclude, I would like to say something so as to avoid any misunderstandings. Throughout the whole of Europe, it is exceptional for insurance undertakings to be wound up, as they are subject to very strict scrutiny, they are very well managed and relations between customers and management are good. The lack of an EU legislative framework is, nevertheless, a potential risk and could lead to serious problems in isolated cases. The idea and the need for a directive are therefore justified and the outcome is to be welcomed.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, could I begin by congratulating Mr Parish on bringing forward a very excellent report. I know very well that he put a lot of time and effort into it and I am happy it can be debated by Parliament today. It is a very difficult subject to address and there is no easy solution to the problem of young farmers, as any of us who have any knowledge of the problem and the background would accept. Of course, everybody likes to say we must help the young farmers. The problem is when you ask them how to make the help really worthwhile, they are very slow to come forward with answers. How can you encourage young people onto the land? You have to address the problem within the situation in which young people find themselves today. Many young people from rural areas some 20, 30 or 40 years ago, at the time Mr McCartin was speaking about, would naturally have gone on to become young farmers. Nowadays those young people have many other options open to them. They look around and they see their friends going into jobs where they may quit working at lunchtime on Friday and not start work again until the Monday morning. But the young farmer will work seven days a week for very little money. You only have to look at the financial situation right throughout the European Union at the moment to see that we have a terrible problem here and one that is not going to be easy to address. The reality is that if you do not get young people into the industry, you will not bring the new ideas in and you will not allow the industry to develop and take on the challenges that it faces in the future, relating not just to the production of food, but to how that food is produced and to ensuring that it is produced in a way the consumer finds acceptable. It is not enough just to give financial assistance to young farmers because then all you do is put the price of lamb up out of reach. We in the European Union have brought in milk quotas, we have brought in suckler cow quotas, we have brought in sheep quotas, all now with a financial value that the young farmer could not even begin to contemplate. So I believe the best way is to make it easier for young farmers to inherit the family farm at an earlier stage, be it through an early retirement scheme or through a bond scheme. I certainly feel that the European Investment Bank should be encouraged to help young farmers into the industry through the bond scheme. But, if you are going to bring this scheme in it has to be mandatory and it has to be introduced in every Member State. It is not enough to introduce it in one Member State alone. Finally, we are spending a lot of money on rural development and the Commission would do well to look at other ways of spending that money, because, as I see it, we could make better use of it. We could encourage young farmers, who face so much red tape and bureaucracy now. Young farmers have computers. Farmers' wives know how to use computers and could use them on the farm. That is the way forward for the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to apologise for the absence of two other Members from my Group, Mrs Ahern and Mrs Echerer, who are not able to be present this evening. I wish to express my thanks and gratitude to Mrs Sanders-Ten Holte, but my main thanks go to Mrs Prets, even though she is not present, for her excellent work on this report, which shows a great understanding for the needs and objectives of youth NGOs. In an increasingly individualistic society, the role that youth NGOs play in engaging young people in civil society is crucial. As Youth Forum Jeunesse said in its recent policy paper, youth NGOs are social agents that empower young people; they are environments for non-formal learning and are specifically suitable, therefore, for young people to learn democratic decision-making, intercultural understanding, self-motivation, project-management, conflict-resolution, organisation of skills and more. Youth NGO activities are heavily reliant, of course, on grants. That is why I welcome that all kinds of youth organisations, including Youth Forum Jeunesse and other international non-governmental youth NGOs, are excluded from the principle of digressivity which would mean a reduction of 2.5% in their funds from the third year onwards. Guaranteeing a regular budget for these NGOs is the best way to support their activities and increase their effectiveness and efforts in creating a generation of young people that will become more socially involved. I also support the proposal to improve the user-friendliness of the grant application process. At the moment it is far too complicated. Therefore, I completely endorse Mrs Pack's Amendment 16, which gives applicants the opportunity to correct errors after submitting their applications. This should reduce the number of applications that are rejected for technical reasons. I also very much hope that Mrs Pack's excellent report will be endorsed by a substantial majority to guarantee a legal basis to effectively fund international youth NGOs.

Political group: Verts-ALE
We support the statements contained in this report declaring that ‘cohesion policy must be based on the principles of solidarity, partnership and additionality’ and that ‘the most remote regions must be given priority in the new regional policy’. We also agree that ‘EU policies must be made considerably more consistent, to the benefit of economic and social cohesion’. And for this reason, we can only condemn the damaging effects that the proposals we are debating on the mid-term review of the CAP and the common fisheries policy would have on the Union’s cohesion policy. Nevertheless, with regard to the funding of cohesion policy in a future enlarged Europe, the mere acknowledgement that it is impossible to drop below the current share of 0.45% of the Union’s GDP is inadequate. Given the implications of the restrictions imposed by the Stability Pact on the least-developed countries – not least Portugal, where the draft budget proposed by the government, in the aim of complying with the convergence criteria, will considerably accentuate regional imbalances – this answer will have to be given on the basis of a real evaluation of cohesion policy needs and with a revision of the financial perspectives with a view to enlargement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have voted against the report by Mrs Lalumière for reasons that include the following: 1.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should briefly like to explain our request. The reason for it is not that we have become more tolerant of the situation in Iran, but that difficult discussions and negotiations are being held in Iran itself at the present time with a view to improving the lot of a number of Iranian citizens who work in the German Embassy. I do not believe that we should now disrupt this process which is taking place in Iran, perhaps by adopting a resolution. We have firm views on the violations of human rights, but in this case – and, I would stress, at this particular time – I do not believe that we should either hold a debate or adopt a resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Socialist Group does not believe that the amendments approved in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market reflect the current situation in the field of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. We must work on the basis that this is not a proposal for a Directive for patenting computer programs. The system for those, as the rapporteur for the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, Mr Rocard, has pointed out, is already regulated by means of a Community Directive. We are talking about the field of intellectual creation, which have very different rules from those which govern the field of industrial protection. Industrial protection, as Mr Rocard pointed out, relates to the application of industrial uses, and we already have well established rules. What has happened here has been a very dangerous tendency on the part of United States jurisprudence, which has allowed purely intellectual creations, which do not have industrial applications as such, to be patented. The attempt to establish a monopoly on computer programs by means of patents has caused justifiable indignation on the part of all those who are currently using the open network in Europe, and whose possibilities for action would be prejudiced. It would represent a backward step in terms of European progress towards the creation of an information society as laid down in the Lisbon Declaration. The Socialist Group therefore believes that the proposal for a Directive must be substantially modified, establishing very clear limitations, so as not to undermine the nature of industrial patenting. We cannot end up in a situation here like the United States situation, in which there are currently certain companies which in practice are able to prevent all work in the field of computer programming. As Mr Bolkestein has pointed out, the European Patent Office has allowed itself to take this dangerous route to a certain extent, as Japanese jurisprudence has also done, for example. And that is precisely why we need a Community Directive. We believe that intellectual property in the field of computers must be maintained and that we need a Community Directive which just regulates industrial applications, not computer programs, and which regulates it in a sufficiently clear way to prevent us from taking that route, so that the jurisprudence of the European Patent Office does not drag the countries of the European Union along the road of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as such.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, unfortunately it is very timely that we should be discussing these issues today in the light of current examples of restructuring. As has been mentioned earlier, the Anglo-Dutch company Corus – the steel company – is a classic example of a company making decisions based on profit with no regard to the disastrous social costs of its actions. Corus has just announced total job losses of 6 000 in the UK – nearly 3 000 in my own constituency in Wales. Despite months of speculation over possible plant closures the company was unwilling to reveal its future plans to the government, let alone to its own workforce, until the formal announcement was made on 1 February. There was no prior consultation with the workforce, although since announcing the decision the company has been holding what it calls 'consultation'. There is speculation that Danone, a profitable company, is to shed 3 000 jobs in Europe. Again there has been no consultation with the workers and no discussion about alternative ways forward. That is why it is so important to adopt the directive on the information and consultation of workers without delay, together with a review of the European Works Council Directive and the Collective Redundancies Directive, which incidentally proved to offer so little protection to the Corus workers in my constituency. Companies cannot be free to wreak such havoc on people's lives and communities. There is a positive framework of controls and sanctions which we can use. We must make sure they are effective.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, two brief observations regarding the reports on our agenda today. With regard to the Gil-Robles report, I can simply say that it is an example of sound work carried out by our Committee and that the vast majority of our Group will support the report. The Duhamel report took a long time to prepare and its content is substantial and interesting. I would like to highlight two amendments tabled by our Group. The first amendment concerns the duration of the Convention’s work. In our opinion, the new Constitution should even be ready to enter into force by the next European elections. Two years of work should be more than sufficient and we hope that the majority of Parliament will support Amendment No 37. The second point concerns the difference between the first and second stages. We feel that it is essential not so much to simplify and consolidate the Treaty as to turn it into a succinct Constitution which all the European citizens will find readable. I therefore feel that it is not really feasible to divide the work into two stages. In conclusion, I would in any case like to thank the two rapporteurs for their work and to assure them of the support of my Group.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Joint Parliamentary Assembly was established from the desire to bring the European Union closer to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, with the aim of enhancing the economic, social, institutional and cultural development of the ACP countries. On 23 June 2000, a new agreement was signed at Cotonou in Benin. It is intended to last 20 years and to reinvigorate the cooperation policy between the European Union and the ACP countries: this is now urgently needed. The new agreement, which is due to enter into force this year, goes beyond the strict framework of trade and public aid – which is certainly needed but is not sufficient – it adds a more political dimension by introducing ‘good governance’. But be careful, ladies and gentlemen, let us not be mistaken. It is misleading to think that we could transpose into developing countries a State model similar to the one that we constructed in developed democracies. It is equally misleading to think that the end of poverty decrees that development gains ground, rather than being brought in from outside. First and foremost, development is and must be endogenous, because determining export priorities involves making a very dangerous choice – it highlights differences and tensions by encouraging the emergence of a caste of entrepreneurs who are focused on their profit alone, to the detriment of the people. It is therefore hoped that this new agreement will take a responsible approach and that the former colonial powers, which include many Member States, finally break free from their guilty practices and will resolutely commit to a new partnership with the ACP countries. This would be a partnership that places the emphasis on appreciating the specific assets of each country and not on transposing a European model that cannot be adapted to Africa or some Asian countries. Being from the island of Réunion, I am, without doubt, the MEP who lives closest to the African continent. I can assure you that we must pursue our efforts so that this continent, which has for too long been mistreated, finally emerges from under-development. Therefore, I willingly voted in favour of these new agreements.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I simply wish to thank and congratulate Mr Mayer on the report he has carried out, which affects all the hop-producing countries of the Community and which, in the case of Spain, affects my region, Castilla-León, in the León area. I agree with everything Mr Mayer has said. The report has been unanimously approved in the Committee on Agriculture. I congratulate Mr Mayer and I hope that he receives the support of this Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
As is plain to see, we voted against the ECSC budget, which, as it will do until the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, continues to pump subsidies to shareholders in the steel industry. Substantial sums have already been handed out to the bosses in this sector, allowing them to move over to lucrative new sectors, while many of the workers whose jobs have been abolished are still unemployed. This report proposes the integration of social security assistance into the Budget of the European Union; but there is a need to guarantee, as a minimum, that all the workers affected by future job losses will receive the whole of their salary up to the age of retirement. –van Dam Report (A5-0326/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council and dear parliamentary colleague, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement is an historical and moral need and a unique opportunity to reconcile this continent with itself. Underlying the debate we have held this morning and the debate we are holding on Mr Brok’s report – whom I would like to congratulate on his work – is a need: to reflect in depth on ourselves, on our role in the world, on what the European Union project has been, what it is at the moment and what we want it to be within the context of an enlarged Union. And in terms of this reflection, I believe the work of the European Convention is of fundamental importance and I believe we must seek a suitable formula for involving – as has been requested this morning – the representatives of the candidate countries in the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. With regard to the short term, I am convinced that, thanks to the efforts of the European Commission, of the Member States and of the candidate countries, within a few weeks, in Copenhagen, we will be able to reach a reasonable and fair agreement. I also believe that we will be able, on the basis of equal, and therefore non-discriminatory, conditions for all, to mark the way, by means of the pre-accession strategies which have been expressed here this morning and by concluding the negotiations under way. Nevertheless, Mr President, I believe it is important that we do not get bogged down in the immediate and the present. I believe that History is not only written as a narrative using the preterite tense. Because, if we do not have a clear vision of our future ambitions and projects, not only will we be unable to design our future, but we will also have great difficulties understanding the past. Today, Mr President, History is being conjugated in the present tense. And, in this historic present we are living through, the European Union is taking shape as one of its main protagonists. Today it is presented as an economic, financial and industrial power, but it has a great and essential need to affirm its presence on the international stage and to provide itself with a security and defence policy which will allow us to confront the new types of threat, especially following the attacks of 11 September. Mr President, we must overcome the challenges involved in enlargement, we must take advantage of all potential and all synergy, we must build a unified political and economic area which will bring together more than 500 million people, of which, in the initial phase, 300 will use the same currency. Mr President, I believe that, in summary, it is a question of us, with generosity and a vision of the future, being able, although figures are important, to put ideals before figures.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have noticed that recent events have initially borne out what I predicted on 15 March and 3 May. I would invite you to read up on the Minutes. At the time, I stated that granting premature support to the Macedonian government, proclaiming desperate Albanians as extremists and distributing funds would not lead to answers, peace and reconciliation, but would fan the flames of violence. A proportion of the Macedonian population and of the Macedonian government dreamed of a Macedonia without Albanians, or only with completely unrecognisable and adapted residents of Albanian origin. That proportion wanted to buy arms with EU subsidies intended for peace. Hopefully, the change in the Constitution will put an end to the idea that within the borders of that country, there is only room for one language and one nation, and that all problems would be solved if the large Albanian minority were ignored, or even driven away. If, in future, the roles were reversed because the Albanians had become the largest nation, they will hopefully sympathise more with the ambitions of the Macedonian minority than is now the case in respect of the Albanians. If future aid is now employed for peace, reconciliation and reconstruction, then I can fully support the initiative. – Färm report (A5-0410/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, sadly, it cannot be denied that there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of executions in Iran in the past year. The practice of stoning men and, in particular, women, not only continues to be provided for by law but is frequently applied, as is shown by the many death sentences already pronounced. As we are aware, in the coming months, a further four women will be stoned under a legislative framework which forces an oppressive, discriminatory system of control on women. As far as respect for fundamental rights is concerned, the deterioration of the situation in Iran has been pointed out and emphasised by a number of organisations as well as a UN General Assembly resolution and the most recent report produced by the Special Representative of the UN Human Rights Commission on Iran. Now, in the dialogue taking place between the European Union and Iran, the Union’s exploratory mission did indeed record willingness on the part of the Iranian Government to discuss human rights issues, including specific cases, but this verbal expression of good will has not been borne out by any practical measure. Quite the opposite: the situation seems to be deteriorating. Although it is true that we must welcome signs of cooperation from the Iranian Government, we also need to realise that the increase in executions and the continued stonings are a negative sign for the Union, which cannot accept them out of respect for its own Charter of Fundamental Rights and the international conventions. It is therefore imperative that, at all stages of the current dialogue, the Union makes clear that it is an absolute necessity that Iran guarantees respect for fundamental rights, especially women’s rights, and that it reiterates the need for Iran to abolish the death penalty, the practice of stoning and all other inhuman or debasing practices.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we should not lightly move Question Time to the Commission. It is all very well to play high politics in this House but to many of our Members Question Time to the Commission is extremely important. Indeed, much of our work of scrutinising of the Commission is done through Question Time. I accept the case on this occasion, since we wish to have representatives of the Council and the Commission present for the debate. However, I would appeal to my colleagues in the other groups that we do not make a habit of moving Question Time to the Commission. It is an important part of our work. Our view on the question of the vote is that we are in a very fast-moving situation. We will certainly know more by Thursday than we will by Wednesday. There is a good case on this occasion for taking that vote on Thursday lunchtime and not on Wednesday.

Political group: ELDR