kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
the pressures generated by this situation are putting massive strain on the funding of social services and the report calls for enhanced eu programmes and for project bonds to help address those problems. because of the economic and unemployment crisis our citizens face they have a greater need than ever for access to high quality social services while our economies and our societies
the world has changed dramatically since two thousand and seven the last occasion on which social services were addressed in this parliament.
i hope that this report can be adopted in full tomorrow and look forward to working with all the stakeholders to ensure that our citizens get the services they deserve.
it is based on widespread consultation with civil society with the social partners and with local and regional authorities and on detailed political compromises consolidating two hundred and eighty five amendments to the report.
the report as it stands outlines reforms to address the problems and legal uncertainties that providers and users have identified as needing urgent solutions such as the difficulties arising from current procurement and state aid rules.
we can differ here on matters of principle and on matters of law but the proposed working group provides us with an ongoing method to arrive at implementable solutions.
a high level stakeholders' working group is proposed.
for me this is the most important aspect of the report.
it is my objective to try to maintain the integrity of those compromises in the vote tomorrow.
public services contribute twenty six of our gdp and employ sixty four million people one third of whom are employed in the health and social services while eurofound research shows that public services are one of the most important ways of enhancing the citizens' quality of life ensuring full inclusion in society and providing for social and territorial cohesion.
i also propose a fourth forum on services of general interest to monitor progress of the working group and other initiatives such as the european voluntary quality framework.
it also proposes an active role for social economy enterprises and actors urges that a race to the bottom be prevented through compliance by contractors and sub contractors with member states' social environmental and quality criteria and looks for an eu statute on mutual societies.
also need the added value which such services can deliver.
the light regulation' economic model assiduously promoted by the commission and the council over many years spectacularly collapsed at the end of that year.
some member states' debt and budget deficits have reached crisis levels as a consequence of the nationalisation of privately owned bank debt resulting in vicious austerity programmes which are hitting the vulnerable hardest.
i welcome the recognition in the resolution that the social rights of users and of staff override those of competition and also our call to protect public services in our countries against disproportionate cuts at this time of economic austerity. local government in particular will welcome our statement that the most appropriate form of delivery for social services is public and voluntary sector provision including in house. they will welcome the fact that tendering is only one form of selecting a provider and that if tendering is used there should be no automatic bias towards the lowest cost above everything else.
mutuals and cooperatives will welcome our recognition for the social economy.
the public service ethic is brought into european decision making through this resolution.
so the commission agrees with the rapporteur and the house that it is vital to guarantee universal access to high quality accessible affordable social services.
the commission is aware of the concerns expressed by public authorities and service providers on the application of eu rules to social services.
in addition we believe that some of the difficulties encountered by stakeholders are due to a lack of awareness and information about how eu rules are applied.
as a result the commission has put in place various tools over the last four years to provide more information and clarification to stakeholders and we will of course continue to do so.
the commission is also in the process of revisiting eu state aid and public procurement rules. in the state aid field the commission will ensure that the rules take due account of the specificities of the social services sector and are proportionate to the often limited competition distortions in this area.
on public procurement the commission's green paper has launched an eu wide debate on how to increase flexibility and clarify existing rules while at the same time guaranteeing high quality services.
i am sure that substantial progress can be achieved in this area.
i would also like to comment on an idea which was discussed in the third forum on social services of general interest namely the establishment of a high level working group involving a wide range of stakeholders parliament commission council committee of regions social partners and civil society organisations.
at the same time we need of course to ensure that such a dialogue respects the role of the various institutions as defined by the treaties and leads to concrete results. we consider therefore that it would be more suitable and effective to build on existing structures;
it has been a long road close to five years but we are almost at the end of our journey.
it is cultivated in five member states.
madam president the overall agreement broadly reflects the commission's original intention that member states should have the option to decide whether or not to cultivate gmos. the intention was to unblock the wholly unjustified failure to grant final approval of gmos by the commission.
it allows for national bans to apply to groups of gmos rather than on a case by case basis and fails to completely rule out the possibility of member states citing environmental and public health grounds for national bans.
on principle i cannot accept a proposal which allows for the scientific assessment of gmos to be undermined in this way.
on a more optimistic note this does show that eu competences as defined by the treaties are not absolute and i look forward to such flexibility being shown in other areas as my prime minister continues his negotiations to reform the eu.
there are many details here which i find unacceptable.
member states that want to continue to develop european agriculture as the best in the world are holding their breath counting on this not being just a charter to ban but also a key to unlock progress.
based on a disproportionate demonisation of gmos along the frankenstein foods' lines promoted in the tabloid press members are cutting off a route to higher yields lower pesticide use and less use of water and denying access to new generation gmos such as omega three rich camelina which will have widespread health benefits. i hope that the cobbled together legally fragile compromise that parliament has promoted will be robust and that the authorisations will start to flow.
of course as with all controversial proposals the devil is in the detail.
the agreement will permit member states to proceed directly to national bans post union authorisation rather than first seeking a more legally sound opt out from authorisation as initially proposed.
the european parliament's negotiating position on this file has led to this unsatisfactory outcome.
in other words we are now present at the final act in a long and expensive process initiated simply to avoid repeated exposure of the commission's lack of political courage.
this conflicts with the efsa risk assessment process whereby the environmental and public health risks of gmos are examined on a case by case basis prior to union authorisation.
parliament's first reading and frdrique ries's report from last year were both excellent rebuttals to the initial weak proposal by the commission in two thousand and ten and the very worrying council position of june.
unfortunately the key word complementary' has been removed to a recital and the language is contradictory and would be worrying if it were ever challenged in court.
they have seen the impact that gm cultivation has had in america and india increased herbicide resistance and the need for stronger pesticides and more frequent pesticide use.
parliament wanted to ensure that member states would be able to use justifications for opting out based on environmental and health grounds additional to those examined in the european risk assessment.
citizens are acutely aware of the implications of gm.
the ups and downs of this legislation have unfortunately ended on a disappointing note.
while i welcome the fact that this system has been improved in the final document i nevertheless believe that the legislation before us is flawed.
the long and winding path to today's vote reflects the highly controversial nature of genetic modification for consumers farmers national governments and meps in this parliament. consistent polls show that citizens across the european union continue to be wary of gm a wariness that biotech companies casually dismiss as lack of understanding.
two thousand and fourteen the council position introduced a system whereby democratically elected governments would politely ask a biotech company to remove their territory from the authorisation procedure.
this is the latest attempt to get more gm authorisations agreed at european level by putting the decision to ban gmos in the hands of individual governments.
in theory this could be appealing for a country like wales where agriculture is devolved.
increasing gm authorisations in europe would also send a signal to the rest of the world that gmos are becoming more acceptable.
the new system would allow countries whose governments are more subject to lobbying from agribusinesses and i am ashamed to say that my country is one of those to introduce gm crops as a trojan horse to undermine the eu ban on this dangerous technology.
they will be allowing their own priorities to work against the desires and wishes of other eu citizens.
for this reason the proposal is inherently inimical to the single market and to european unity.
before we vote on this proposal we should ask ourselves how we come to be here.
i have not received a single e mail from my constituents in the south west calling for more gm crops.
we have arrived here because of relentless high powered well funded lobbying by the biotech corporations who have no interest in our welfare and are simply interested in swelling their own profits even at a risk to public health.
madam president the report we are about to vote on today represents a balanced compromise that takes both the science and the views of the public into account.
it provides for a strengthened environmental impact assessment on new gmos.
this should be good news for the fast growing environmentally friendly and job creating sector of organic agriculture which cannot afford contamination with gm crops.
it strikes the labour party that the british conservatives are opposed to the proposed exclusion of biotech companies from the decision making process.
this only shows once again that the tories remain in the hands of big business lobbyists and have little regard for the views of the general public little regard for the consumer and little regard for common sense.
to vote blocks the only reason for these blocks is the group of meps that proposed the amendments.
i'm afraid that this directive has some provisions that are detrimental to competition in the relevant markets.
we have also laid down extensive rights for consumers protection for consumers the right to information compulsory advice the right to switching the right to let's say portability rights;
it is a regulation that lays down pan european quality criteria pan european rights for consumers but also true pan european oversight and the possibility for eiopa to intervene and i think that is something that was very important.
it will actually offer the opportunity to people who today do not have a proper pension provision to actually have something for the future.
i've received a lot of emails as have most of the colleagues i suppose in particular from spain accusing us of being a threat to the public pension systems.
i think that what we are going to vote on today will achieve that objective and further contribute to a social europe that actually cares for people and i hope that it's going to command a very solid majority.
it is complementary individual and voluntary.
it in no way replaces the first or second pillar products and i think it is important to realise that.
i would like to say that for me creating a pepp which is good for consumers was the prime concern and i know that one of the objectives of the commission was also to complete the capital markets union and if we have contributed to that with pepp then i'm very happy but for me creating something which is good for european citizens was actually the prime objective.
but that is really complete nonsense and i would like to state here that the only real threat to public pension systems are the national authorities which are completely unable and unwilling to reform their systems and if today pepp is going to fill a gap in member states where the pension provisions are inadequate that is purely to blame on those national governments and not on pepp.
initially we wanted authorisation by eiopa but i think that now with the smart use of the existing powers of eiopa we have achieved the same goal.
first of all to start with the pan european nature.
we have achieved a fee cap of one which is no small achievement because there was massive resistance against it and if you see the fees that are actually being charged today a one fee cap is really very good.
nevertheless we have all seen in recent days that there are still a lot of people who are concerned and i would like to eliminate a couple of misunderstandings.
thank you for accepting the blue card.
you have accepted unfortunately to leave that house in order to become ceo of the irish banks and payments federation.
three three that before speaking any potential conflict of interest should be declared orally or in writing to the president.
have you declared the potential conflict of interest when dealing with this file?
first i have to declare that after several years working with you brian i have always had a great personal sympathy for you even if we disagreed on a lot of substance.
you can be assured that the commission will follow closely the transposition of this directive.
it's good for businesses also smes which will profit from attracting and keeping talent and it is good for member states that currently lose out altogether eur three hundred and seventy billion every year due to the gender employment gap today.
we have come a long way to reach this result and we all had to show flexibility and compromise on certain points.
it proves that social europe and a sustainable europe is not a theoretic imaginary objective but an evolving reality on the ground.
i am convinced that it will provide concrete improvements to the family and working lives of our citizens transforming the principles of the european pillar of social rights into reality.
but i am convinced that the agreement on the table is well balanced and preserves the main objectives of our original proposal.
it's good for working parents and carers who will enjoy a better balance between their private and professional lives.
i truly believe that family friendly policies are a key driver to economic growth.
at the same time european markets for personal pension products are fragmented and uneven in some parts of the union even non existent. only sixty seven million out of the total population of two hundred and forty three million european citizens between twenty five and fifty nine years old have currently invested in personal pension products.
supplementary pensions can only become effective if they are accessible for all income brackets.
eu. finally i am well aware that important work remains to be done to define some key features of the pepp through delegated acts.
will benefit consumers and providers with a strong framework for personal pensions through a new product with strong consumer protection and enhanced cross border competition.
the commission will closely follow eiopa's work on these matters and make sure that the resulting delegated acts are fully consistent with the political orientation taken by the co legislators.
it will channel savings towards longterm investments and benefit investment growth and jobs throughout the
as the rapporteur said it will not by any means replace public pension schemes.
the design of the pepp will ensure that products offered are competitive and costeffective with strong protection for all savers. personal pension providers will be able to sell the pepp across the eu with one single registration
according to our data across the eu people retiring between now and two thousand and fifty seven will need to save an additional two trillion euro each year to achieve a sustainable income in retirement.
the pepp will give all citizens the opportunity to save for their retirement on a purely voluntary basis.
this directive aims at providing more opportunities incentives and choices for our citizens to define their own worklife balance but the final decision remains a choice of the individual parents.
in addition fathers will have ten days of paternity leave paid at the level of sick pay and parents and carers will all have the right to request flexible working arrangements. last but not least this directive will also respond to one of the major challenges our society is facing the ageing of the population.
we also aim at giving fathers a real chance to be with their children because nowadays men and women are still forced to juggle their careers and their families and as we all know this is especially the case for women. we see this in our labour market statistics
it is transforming the principles of the european pillar of social rights into reality and it's also taking us a step ahead in the implementation of the united nations sustainable development goals.
i truly believe that this directive provides concrete improvements to the family and working lives of our citizens.
the overall employment rate of women is. eleven five percentage points lower than that of men and this also means that there is a gender pay gap of sixteen translating later into a gender pension gap of.
with this directive we aim at increasing women's participation in the labour market and ensuring that they have the choice to balance family and professional career.
allow me to disagree and argue quite the opposite.
you have really done your utmost to find a good agreement on this important file.
thanks to this directive fathers and mothers will have parental leave of four months like now but with the directive two of those four months will be nontransferable and paid at an adequate level set by member states.
of course the commission was even more ambitious but i think we have found a fair compromise in the trilogues.
but it's an important first step in trying to get the message across.
secondly it is important that this is part of the capital markets union.
many of them have come to ireland and worked for maybe four or five years and then go back to their home country or go to another country to work.
this is not the end of pepp;
from my perspective it was very important that this product was provided for by a multiple of providers.
it ensures mandatory advice strong contract requirements rights of switching and a fee cap and the product intervention powers of eiopa and competent authorities.
but i want to reiterate this is a third pillar product.
it does not cut across in any way first or second pillar pension provision. this is a product that delivers on strong consumer protection.
this is a voluntary product.
it delivers on giving citizens full transparency of costs and esg policy.
if we don't encourage people to save we're going to find our situation getting worse and worse over the.
so it's important that the insurance industry asset managers and others are now able to provide this product on a pan european basis.
we have made a good start with this proposal. it is not the end of the matter by any manner or means but it certainly deals with the issue that we face in europe that we are going to have. it is anticipated that we will have one worker for every two pensioners
it is crucially important that we get people saving earlier as the commissioner rightly said and one of the advantages of pepp now is that we have a pan european product.
this is the first step we're taking baby steps here today.
we need to get the connection going between investment and savers. that's where the big problem is in europe right now.
last year in my country ireland thirty zero eu citizens came to work because we have full employment in ireland. many of them are young people.
those young people who are travelling to ireland and elsewhere to work have the opportunity of buying into a pan european pension.
probably the most important thing to stress is that there are private pension products on the european markets and they are unregulated.
that is a very important statement to make. one final point we all know that this does not replace basic pensions but i do think that the commission needs to become very clear that they are not in their austerity programme of the future pushing further cuts of the first pillar.
so what we're doing here is finally regulating private pension products.
mr president yes i confess that i drafted this particular paragraph in our rules of procedure. it has been there for some years and it is specifically there to cater for this sort of situation where we have an inordinate number of amendments but where it is possible to make groupings in the way that mr lamberts described or in other ways in a sensible way so that parliament can get through its business.
whilst respecting the rights of members to put their positions and have them voted on it does make sense to group amendments in this way and it will permit us to get through our business efficiently effectively without any members losing their rights to table amendments.
irrespective of politics i believe that this process demonstrates a disregard for the prerogatives of this parliament and should be resisted.
this technical and very welcome report which gives uk citizens the rights of visa entry to the eu after brexit has been hijacked by a politicallymotivated intervention from spain in the council.
the people of gibraltar have full autonomy.
he was then removed in a closed meeting because the spanish government did not agree with the mandate that libe gave him.
the second reason is procedural.
the first is that the report describes gibraltar as a colony.
his removal was an outrageous abuse of procedure. it is one thing for the spanish government to persuade the council of their views. it is quite another for them to subvert the rules of this place.
it is a self governing british overseas territory.
we need a debate to expose spain's corrupt influence on this file.
they are british by choice.
in relation to carers' leave this directive brings a true novelty at the european level but i regret to say that member states have been too reluctant or cautious in their approach.
in this house we managed to take it to a higher level but after tough and lengthy negotiations with the council the final text has lost in potential. i would have liked stronger provisions on paternity leave and levels of payment on parental leave because there are studies which clearly indicate that a percentage of around eighty five
too much is left in the hands of the member states and in the end there is little changed compared to the current situation.
last but not least eu citizens are entitled to ask for flexible working arrangements to balance working patterns with their individual and family needs.
otherwise the burden will continue to be on women.
the final negotiations between the two colegislators couldn't reach an agreement on these aspects.