GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to explain why our group, the Group of the European Peoples’ Party , has abstained on Amendment No 1 in Mr Casaca’s report. The word ‘abstention’ is reminiscent of certain expressions commonly used in surveys such as ‘do not know, no comment’ and, in this case, we believe that we Members of this Parliament do not yet know either the magnitude of the facts, in relation to Eurostat, or the possible responsibilities stemming from them. And ‘no comment’, in the sense that OLAF, a body responsible for combating fraud, has not provided this Parliament or any of its committees with adequate information in this regard, which could provide a detailed and complete picture of the situation. Under these circumstances, a vote in favour of the amendment would imply that we had full knowledge of the facts and that as a result we were passing judgment in terms of certain responsibilities. A vote against would also mean having knowledge of the facts and drawing a line under the issue as if it had already finished, without clarifying responsibilities. It was therefore better to await any news which may arrive from OLAF. I cannot end without saying that we believe Parliament has shown incoherence this morning, and the majority has rejected the individual responsibility of Commissioners, immediately after an individualised reference, which, in our opinion, is unfair, since it is untimely, partial and hasty. We trust that OLAF will soon provide the information we need in order to issue a reasoned judgment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Schroedter, the rapporteur, for her work. I think that this work has been carried out extremely well. I would also like to thank her for her willingness to enter into dialogue with the other political groups when compromise formulas have needed to be reached in the face of this avalanche of amendments – and perhaps there are more of them than we expected – but which genuinely reflect the importance of the report we are now discussing. We feel that it is important that the Commission takes account of the conclusions adopted by this Parliament, at least in spirit, because at this stage, it might seem as though what we are doing here is a useless exercise, and nothing but hot air. The truth of the matter though is that we believe – and this is also shown in the way the conclusions have been drafted – that the Commission must take account of what is adopted by this Parliament, particularly in the face of an interim revision of these directives. In our amendments, we have stated the importance of the necessary synergies being produced between the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and Community initiatives, so that their application should be reflected, in the best and most profitable way, by the gradual elimination of disparities between regions and by the creation of jobs which are, when all is said and done, the two central purposes of the funds we are discussing. In order to achieve a more rapid and efficient boost for attaining these objectives, we think that those who generate employment, the real entrepreneurs and those who really guarantee new sources of employment, that is, businesspeople, must participate in this initiative. Small and medium-sized businesses, above all, need to take part in the distribution of these funds. If they do not, if businesspeople feel marginalised, if entrepreneurs cannot take part, not only in managing but also in receiving these funds, we will have missed an opportunity to attain our objectives more rapidly. Also, in order to attain our objectives, to overcome the disparities between regions and to seek out sources of employment, it is crucial to give our complete support to new technologies, to transport and communications networks and to renewable energies. All of this must be done – I repeat – with the participation of private business, which, by uniting its efforts with those of public administrations, but complementing them, never obstructing or excluding them, will lead to the creation of wealth in society and of jobs.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report by Mr Schmidt states, in a concise and precise manner, most of the options that we seek to advocate in this House. As a democrat among the Members who asked for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be included, as it stands, in the draft Constitution, I cannot agree with his conclusions. In addition to the facts and figures expressed very well by my fellow Members, I will make three points. The Geneva Convention was drawn up in the middle of the cold war, at a time when the world was one of extremes. The European Union has become a new growth area which, in the majority of States of the world, embodies a hope, a goal to achieve to escape poverty, war and political instability. The tragic escalation of social, religious and ethical tensions and civil wars, cause States to break-up and individuals to despair. Their presence, their exodus towards our countries reminds Europe that poverty and crises are rife on its doorstep. Europe has a specific role to play and the answer is not ‘Fortress Europe’. Yes, we do need a legal framework. Yes, we do need to be very mindful of the decisions we make. I do not believe, however, that a list of safe states is either useful or desirable. Simply by having a list we are contravening Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or country of origin. Not considering a claimant’s request for asylum on the basis of a list of ‘safe’ countries really amounts to denying a refugee his or her most fundamental right, the right to be a fully accepted individual with inalienable rights. I will conclude by saying that there is an urgent need for a European directive in the field of asylum procedure and above all for a concerted Community policy. Without this fundamental legal basis our actions will not allow us to be coherent.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur. I would like to begin by saying that retirement, while still being a technical/legal and economic/actuarial issue, has become an issue of the greatest media interest and has won the status as a central issue within policy in general, and within social policy in particular. Back in 1950, the age of sixty was regarded as the threshold of old age; the age of 65 implied retirement from active working life, and not to have a will drawn up by the age of seventy would unquestionably have been considered recklessly irresponsible. We can conclude from this that the population of our current society, which has doubled by the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, includes many people of a very advanced age, who until recently were classified as ‘old people’, and those older people have a strong social image, they are real, they have active lives and have good reason to hope to continue living. Within this context, a long-term perspective is necessary in the field of pensions and, despite the fact that dealing with pensions and pension policy are essentially the responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the European contribution appears to be necessary, both in the exchange of best practices and in increasing consensus, and in the common regulation of certain aspects necessary in order to ensure the possibility of transferring pension rights of all types and their viability. Pension systems through public schemes linked to income – first pillar – through private professional schemes – second pillar – and individual retirement pension funds – third pillar – must offer Europeans the opportunities to maintain their standard of living following retirement. A system which prevents or hinders the free movement of people must therefore be excluded, as must the European citizens’ fear of ageing or physical or psychological deterioration. In the face of the weight of the third pillar, fear must be alleviated and business interests excluded. The viability of the pension system must be guaranteed, and it must respond to changes in society and in the ways in which production is organised: the greater presence of women, an older active population and atypical forms of contract.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too should like to thank the Commissioner for this important statement which, in terms of pensions at European level, represents a fresh social challenge with financial implications, as opposed to a financial problem accompanied by a number of social aspects. In my opinion, the Belgian presidency should be very grateful for your contribution to the debate. Commissioner, I should like to ask you two questions. The first one concerns the objectives included in the document. I note that the ten objectives which we adopted from the original statement have been whittled down to three. Although there are three key objectives – and that might benefit clarity – in my opinion, a number of crucial elements have fallen by the wayside, such as solidarity between generations and solidarity within one generation. Another aspect which I miss is the link between the pension pillars. What are the roles of the first, second and third pillars? Those are questions which are no longer addressed here. How does the Commissioner intend to include problems of this kind in the debate at this stage? Secondly, you were right in calling for a global approach. Göteborg has stated that the agreements must be included in the wider economic guidelines. That has not been provided for in the plan.

Political group: PSE
At a time when France has entered a conflict with the main users of diesel oil (truckers, farmers, ambulance drivers), which risks spreading around Europe with the escalation in fuel prices, at a time when negotiations have begun in Lyon on implementing the Kyoto Protocol, with all its provisions that need to be adopted in The Hague to combat emissions of greenhouse gases, we can see how far we still have to go at all levels to shift away from modes of transport that pollute and damage the environment towards environmentally sustainable ones that make a real contribution to the fight against greenhouse gas emissions. In that sense, Mrs Lucas’ report sets out the positive measures that will help reduce pollution in air transport including, in particular, the phasing out of the loudest aircraft. At the same time, it raises practical and political problems, namely the obstacles of air transport policies and their adverse environmental impact. Europe’s measures to reduce greenhouse gases are being blocked by the fact that it has excluded air transport, a major CO2 producer, from the Kyoto Protocol and the plans to reduce pollutants. A tax on kerosene, environmental charges, zero VAT rating of air tickets: these are all points that need to be considered in order to establish fair competition between the different modes of transport.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the enlargement of the Union is a means of increasing stability and safety in Europe and of promoting tolerance and democracy. However, it is just as vital that there is reform of the Union’s institutions so as to ensure that the stability of the Union itself does not go under in a climate of indecisiveness on the one hand and public indifference and repugnance on the other. This would require majority decisions in the Council to become the rule, and likewise, codecision for Parliament, in agricultural matters, for example. I welcome the declaration of fundamental rights, but it has to be improved in order to better accommodate the citizens’ expectations, and it has to form part of a European constitutional process. It must be integrated in the Treaty. The development of a credible and democratic Europe requires more involvement from the citizens, the regions, the small and large Member States, more decisiveness on the part of the Commission and a reinforcement of the role of Parliament, but especially the will of the Commission to play its role on behalf of the Union, and this is what we failed to do in the Middle East, for example. Peace must be achieved for the sake of those killed, especially on the Palestinian side and, in order to recover the spirit of Oslo, we must go back to basics. Israel is entitled to peace and safety but the Palestinians, who had to give up a large part of their land for this, are entitled to their own state, as enshrined in UN resolutions 242 and 338. The election of Mr Kostunica is without a doubt a sign of hope to all democrats, but at the same time, the issues of future stability push themselves to the fore in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, for peace in the Balkans is fragile and we will need, with immediate effect, to have the means at our disposal to secure reconstruction and future stability in a democratic process.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tobacco is the mainstay of the economy of large rural areas of southern Europe. Production of this crop is hardly mechanised, so it has considerable social significance and an impact on employment. Tobacco is grown on small family plots in regions classed amongst the poorest in Europe. I shall give you an example affecting my country directly. Tobacco represents 25% of final agricultural production in the region of Extremadura. The argument linking the end of aid to tobacco and consequently the end of its production with health considerations is quite mistaken, unfair and regrettably also hypocritical. Nobody would dream of suggesting stopping the cultivation of plants used to produce alcohol through distillation because of the health problems caused by alcohol. Nobody has suggested closing down the factories manufacturing cigars and cigarettes either, or banning the sale of these products. It is certainly the case that the withdrawal of aid would put an end to tobacco production in Europe. This would not, however, improve the health of European consumers because the gap left by Community production would be filled by imports from third countries. Anyone wishing to continue smoking could do so. What is at issue is simply commercial interest. The only way of tackling the health issue is to pursue the approach launched some time ago by the European Union. This involves developing methods of cultivation and introducing less harmful varieties whilst also boosting information campaigns designed to reduce consumption. The opinion of the Committee on Budgets is that agronomic research financed by the Tobacco Fund should be intensified. The European Commission, on the other hand, wishes to stop research and promote conversion, though no viable alternative is suggested. The Commission is exceeding its competence on this issue. Its role should be to extend the aid regime, in a spirit of continuity. We therefore request the deletion of recital 5, and we believe the legal service of the Council of Ministers agrees with us on this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would once again like to invoke Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure in order to make a personal statement. It appears that the European People’s Party wishes to discount any Socialist intervention by accusing it of harbouring electoral or party-political motives. There is nothing I would like more than to have an influence on the Italian electoral process. The Italian electoral process is taking place in Italy, but in Spain, at the moment, we have a president of the Supreme Court who is awaiting a response from this Parliament and so far he has not received one.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the proposed arrangements for the insurance card may abolish a few bureaucratic procedures, but in practice any positive points are cancelled out by the policy of reducing social spending and benefits, in accordance with the Maastricht criteria, on the pretext of excessive public-sector deficits, and by the policy of commercialising the health systems. These adjustments will help to speed up the implementation of the policy of the European Union, of the capitalist reforms in the Members States, on the pretext of harmonising health systems, by which we mean levelling social benefits downwards, abolishing the public nature and privatising and commercialising the health and social security systems, reducing pensions and increasing workers’ contributions to insurance funds. All this signals an attack on the workers. What good will the card be when access to the national health system is becoming more and more problematic and the privilege of the right to care remains with those who can afford to pay, given that even national health hospitals are operating on business criteria? Insurance funds are in the red because the state is drawing resources from the social security funds in order to finance the money markets and help out employers by reducing employer contributions. The proposed measures will probably make the financial situation of the insurance funds worse. When social security is privatised, what sort of insurance will there be for the 20% of the population of the European Union living below the poverty line and the 8.8% unemployed, according to the recent Eurostat study? So the workers have nothing to expect from the much-publicised insurance card. On the contrary, they can expect greater insecurity, poverty and increased payments in order to have preventive health protection and care. We are certain that they will fight to overturn these policies. We, the Communist Party of Greece, stand by their side.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are delighted with what Mr Chirac, the President-in-Office of the Council, has said at a time when we have the strong feeling that there is a deep crisis in Europe and when we would like to know where we stand. I should like to discuss the three factors which I think are at the root of the crisis in Europe today. The first is a profound questioning of all the institutional players in Europe; the second factor is the distance and the lack of understanding that separate the general public from the European institutions, and the third factor, which is the key to the first two, is a loss of perspective. For a long time, we in Europe felt that we knew where we were going. This is no longer the case. That is why many of us welcomed the speech made by the President of the French Republic to the Reichstag, particularly his decision to declare the European Constitution to be the key to all future mechanisms for change. Today, he has chosen not to use the same words. Many of us regret this because we feel that his statement that the ideas he expressed in the Reichstag went beyond the French Presidency of the Union, represents a fresh approach. We feel instead that the issue of Europe’s prospects, the issue of the architecture of a new Europe and the issue of the future European Constitution belong right at the heart of the French Presidency of the Union. These are not secondary or incidental issues, to be addressed at a later date; they should be addressed as a matter of priority and are at the heart of the discussions that we will be holding. If we are unable to respond to the issue of Europe’s prospects, we will not be able to respond to the technical issues that face us. This would be a missed opportunity for us. I shall sum this up in one sentence: work on the Constitution and therefore on Europe’s prospects must be clearly launched during the French Presidency. It must be launched at Nice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a number of members will be wondering whether, as rapporteur, I will be seeking to refer this matter back to committee. The committee was concerned that the Commission's strategy document was rather vague in terms of the action to be taken in the health and safety field. I can now tell the House that, in a meeting with Commissioner Diamantopoulou yesterday and during the debate last night, I received assurances that the Commissioner will come to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to detail the action to be taken and that a report will be presented on an annual basis to facilitate the monitoring of progress by the committee. On that basis, I recommended to the committee coordinators, at a meeting this morning, that we should proceed with the vote and not refer back. The coordinators agreed, and I therefore recommend that we proceed with the vote. (Parliament adopted the text) *** Report (A5-0329/2002) by Elmar Brok, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy and on amendments to the Rules of Procedure (2002/2130(ACI)) Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
We will vote against the three reports by Mrs van den Burg, Mr Lipietz and Mr Herzog, which complement each other in the field of so-called competition policy. Your economy based on private profit is entirely incapable of dealing either with long-term expenditure on infrastructure or with all the social and human consequences of a competition that could turn out to be fatal to society. This is why we need, on the one hand, a European public bank to fund infrastructure projects and, on the other hand, a degree of state interventionism in order to do what private capital scorns and to dress some of the many wounds opened up by your economic system. We are in favour of defending public services that are useful to the population. We are against the state being used as a crutch for private capital. Our vote against these reports as a whole expresses our opposition to the whole current economic system, which only serves to provide maximum wealth for a privileged few and in no way to properly satisfy the needs of the majority of the population.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, in response to the comments by Mr Titley, I would like to say that I raised the issue of the 30th anniversary of Britain, Ireland and Denmark's membership of the European Union at the last part-session in December and asked our President, Mr Cox, what was going to be done to mark this. I am delighted to say that Mr Cox is hosting a reception tomorrow evening for Members of Parliament and I hope that Mr Titley, among his other invitations for this week, will find the opportunity to attend that reception being offered by the President. I certainly intend to be there myself.

Political group: PPE-DE