GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, what a relief that no speaker so far has called for the environmental directives to be watered down. Mr Sjöstedt, it is nothing to with the poor Member States not knowing what they were letting themselves in for. And right now they know full well that they are simply and deliberately contravening European legislation. They are stalling for time and they know perfectly well that nothing will happen to them, because it takes so long for the Court to do anything. What we have here is the deliberate flouting of European legislation and neither Parliament nor the Council should stand for it. Some members are saying that we should name and shame. I can name and shame myself because Austria is one of the countries which has failed to comply with the habitats directive, but I must also protest, Commissioner, because Austria has not been at all remiss as far as the PCB directive is concerned. We did everything here which needed to be done even before there was a European directive. We passed a Waste Law back in 1990 and an ordinance banning halogenated substances in 1993. We are being accused unfairly here. As far as the nitrates directive is concerned, Austria has now rectified its shortcomings, but we know only too well that the Member States had terrible trouble transposing the nitrates directive. The main problem here was that, because of the extremely high density of livestock in many parts of the Union, keeping to within the limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare of farmland caused immense difficulties with the production of farm manure in several countries. Perhaps such a high density of livestock will be less of a problem in the future, because cows, those pained and tormented creatures, are fighting back. The form of BSE which currently confronts us may well be a sort of revenge on the part of these tormented animals. We should take a lesson from nature and conduct ourselves properly and comply with the laws which we ourselves have passed.

Political group: PPE-DE
While I recognise that the building is beautiful from the outside and that my office is more than adequate for the Strasbourg week, I would like to take this opportunity to point out some of my concerns: drawer units in the offices (in the process of being solved) slowness of lifts and colour of the paint (in the process of being solved) poor working conditions for people operating photocopiers poor working conditions for chauffeurs poor working conditions for people working in the Members’ cash office poor working conditions for people working in the Members’ cafeteria difficulties of movement for disabled people few WCs – which are also dark – (at least in the TOUR building), and which are insufficiently ventilated and cleaned. We cannot allow a building, which has cost, and will continue to cost, the taxpayer so much money, to have so many functional problems.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Commission put forward a good proposal – at least from a strategic point of view – and, at any event, it is a step in the right direction. However, having been through the Council’s mangle, it undeniably looks less impressive. Industry has lobbied well, in the sense that it has succeeded in convincing certain Member States that the EU system will collapse if developing countries are given the opportunity to export just a little bit more sugar and rice than they do at present. I will not even go into the subject of bananas. Despite the fact that the EU countries like to use fine words about being advocates of the free market, protectors of the developing countries and a region with responsibility in the world and with high social ideals, etc. etc., it is apparent that these kinds of words can generally only be used on special occasions. There is occasionally something of a gap between words and action and, if there is one thing that the developing countries need, then it is action. As other speakers have mentioned, there is a kind of tragi-comic situation in the fact that the opportunities of the least developed and poorest nations are being discussed in Brussels right now whilst we are simultaneously having the same debate. It is to be feared that, in both places, the discussion will end once again with a lot of words and, in reality, very little action. But OK, it is a small step in the right direction, and so we can only wish the Commission luck with the new proposal and the new communication on sustainability which also, after all, mentions agriculture. We must therefore hope that the Commission has the necessary strength to settle matters with the agricultural organisations in the various countries. In any event, it is absolutely necessary for us to get to grips with the problems associated with the poorest countries, the number of which has, after all, grown from 25 to 49 over the past 30 years, with only one country disappearing from the list. The developing countries need free trade, debt rescheduling and aid, both technical and economic, and all three are needed urgently.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in her intervention the rapporteur begins by saying that the right to life and human dignity are essential rights, and I entirely agree with her, and in order for that life to be dignified, the right to work, to health, to education and to housing are essential. The report points out quite correctly that seven Member States are failing to comply with the principles of the European Social Charter, for example in relation to access for foreigners to employment, their rights of assembly and trade union rights. As the rapporteur for the Committee on Social Affairs also says, there is a tendency to restrict social and economic rights within the context of reforms of the labour market. I will only comment on certain aspects, Mr President, given the time available. The UNHCR also expresses its concern at the increasing tendency to link asylum seekers to possible crime and terrorism, particularly following 11 September. I believe that a common asylum and immigration policy that respects human rights is essential, as the rapporteur also points out. The repercussions of anti-terrorist measures on the Rule of Law and human rights should be assessed, above all in terms of the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants. Mr President, every day in Spain we see a horrendous tragedy involving people who come looking for a better life. Finally, Mr President, the Committee on Petitions, by means of the report by its rapporteur, points out that family grouping, the right to asylum and free movement are daily problems in the European Union. I do not understand the proposals of some Members of this house which discredit the essential nature of this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I requested the floor to raise a problem that came to light yesterday, during the opening statement by the Danish Presidency. At the beginning of his speech, Mr Rasmussen sidestepped criticism voiced by our fellow Members, Mrs Frahm and Mr Krarup, regarding the policy of the Danish Government, implying that we are here to run European politics and not to discuss the internal affairs of our respective Member States. This position, which I believe to be unacceptable, consists, in reality, of calling for immunity or impunity for the policy which is being applied in Denmark, a policy that the government is, without doubt, justifying by saying they are obliged to apply European Union policy. In this context, how do we explain the fact that no mention has been made of the blatant contradiction between the political choices of the Danish Government, which were outlined yesterday, and the result of the referendums in which the Danish people expressed their opposition to membership as well as to economic and monetary union?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the European Parliament has always upheld the need to increase the European Union’s non-military intervention capabilities. We therefore welcome the Council’s proposal and support Mr Newton Dunn’s report, which puts forward proposals that improve the text. These are clearly issues which come under the first pillar. Nevertheless, we all know that, in the context of the second pillar, the military mechanism of a rapid reaction force, designed to fulfil Petersberg-type tasks, is being created. It is envisaged that these tasks will be carried out in third countries where the non-military rapid reaction mechanism will also operate. But how, and in what cases? What kind of procedures will this relationship employ? What kind of coordination? I therefore think it would have been beneficial for the document to have addressed this aspect as well. As a Member of this Parliament, I wish to contribute to the breaking down of some of the barriers that separate fields of competence from one another so that greater cooperation within the European Union is achieved.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, thank you for ensuring that Parliament respects its precedents. In line with these precedents, I feel that it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the victims of terrorism, especially since they came from one of the Member States of the European Union. It would appear appropriate for this House to pay tribute to the victims of the attack in Karachi, who were from Cherbourg, although that is not my constituency. It would appear appropriate for us to pay tribute to those victims and to the wounded, and to send our condolences and a message of support to their families.

Political group: PSE
Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive does indeed, as many speakers have already said, represent an historic chance to simplify and improve the jumble of piecemeal EU regulations and directives and achieve a high level of environmental protection in Europe. However, I have the impression that the policy in the water framework directive is geared towards deregulation and renationalisation. I also hope that the vote will not be a washout and that will depend on what I see as two quite fundamental points. First OSPAR. We know that the Commission proposal does not go far enough; unfortunately this also applies to the proposal by the Committee on the Environment. Merely pulling proposals out of the air is not enough. What we need is a completely legally binding objective for OSPAR. Only then will we manage to achieve legal clarity and, more importantly, objectives which are enforceable under the law. Anything else will fall short of the mark and will not help to prevent ecological disasters, such as those which have just come to light in Romania and Hungary, from happening to us. I find it unfortunate that national governments are not prepared to stand up for legally binding protection, despite having agreed internationally on OSPAR. But I think that this is exactly what we have to make up for here in Parliament, in order to demonstrate that we will not allow the credibility of our policy to be lost or compromised. It is also important to reinforce the polluter pays principle because prices must speak the ecological truth. We must not bow down before the agricultural or chemical industry lobbyists; on the contrary, we must use our vote to promote and express that fact that we want the polluter pays principle and, hence, cost-covering prices. Water is our most important resource and we must use our vote to ensure that the incentives and pressure are there to really comply with the OSPAR convention. With closed production circuits this is possible; anything else would water down the directive. Let us grab our chance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I am also one of those who have an enormously positive view of the building. I believe that we have a historic building and that we must be the first to respect it and to project a positive image of it. And to the symbolic nature of our building, we should add its functionality. We should recognise, Mr President, that this building has a significant structural defect. In comparison with the building in Brussels the Members have much smaller offices, not in view of their smaller area in terms of square metres, but in view of the fact that Members have to share all their activities with an assistant. Anybody who appreciates the political activity of a Member, and the confidential nature of many of their conversations and activities, will understand that this is possibly the most serious structural defect and, as the President has pointed out, there is possibly no solution to it. Anyway, I think that we should continue to work towards trying to find a way for there to be a degree of independence between the Member and the assistant, given that our work requires this independence, with regard to conversations, the issues to be dealt with and also in other areas which are beside the point. And finally, Mr President, I would like to make another observation – and I understand that this is not an easy issue to resolve – with regard to any possible improvements to the access to this building from the city. There have been times – such as this week’s part-session, which has coincided with the fair – when there has been considerable disruption as far as access to the Parliament is concerned. This will happen again and I believe that analysing possible improvements to this access – at least during parliamentary weeks – would be a positive step.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I respect what the Presidency has said, but I have different information: that this morning all the versions are available. I accept the President’s words, but I must point out that there is some inconsistency here.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I am extremely happy that progress is being made in the dialogue and cooperation between the European Union and the ASEM States, that is Brunei, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, which also concern other very important groups of States in the area such as India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand. I voted for this cooperation, but I call – and I am very happy to do so in this explanation of vote – upon the representatives of the European Union and these States to decide together, in these agreements, exchanges and meetings, upon the best way to tackle and resolve the problems of the elderly people of Europe and of the Far East.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the 15 Heads of State and Government will be meeting this week for the European Council that will close the Swedish presidency of the Union, a presidency everyone agrees struck a positive note, especially in regard to transparency and citizens' access to information. This summit will also have to evaluate the unexpected results of the Irish referendum on ratifying the Treaty of Nice. We are sorry the Irish people said ‘no’ to this treaty; although far from perfect, at least it resolved the left-overs of Amsterdam and, above all, opened the way to enlargement of the European Union to other countries. So what are the Irish saying by abstaining so heavily? That all too often the citizens see Europe as some nebulous abstraction, with no bearing on their daily concerns. If there is a message in this vote, it concerns the urgent need to hold a real, popular grass-roots debate on these issues. I am confident that the Union can rise to this challenge. We hope the Treaty of Nice will enter into force before the end of the year 2002, so that the Union can welcome the new Member States in 2004, as it has undertaken to do. All the existing Member States must hasten to ratify this treaty without delay, and I am glad that by its vote in the National Assembly yesterday, France is now one of the first countries to do so. Our priority, which the Gothenburg European Council must solemnly reiterate, remains to prepare for enlargement. We will do our utmost to ensure that the post-Nice situation lives up to the European citizens’ expectations with regard to the purpose of the Union, in the light of its political project and its democratic deficit. We will say ‘yes’ to the post-Nice situation, prepared by a convention made up of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, the governments of the 15, the Commission and civil society. We will say ‘yes’ to a European constitution that reaffirms our common values, respect for human rights, cultural diversity and the social model, and that defines the respective competences of the Member States and the Union. We also say ‘yes’ to a federation of nation-states in which each state will retain its specific nature and its competences.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, during the debate the day before yesterday with the Council and the Commission, I mentioned the savage reaction of certain Turkish leaders to the fear that the European Union might try to interfere in internal Turkish affairs on the Kurdish question, at the very moment when a new path to membership is opening up for Turkey. I can only repeat here as firmly as possible what I said in Ankara on my last visit there. The European Parliament has no intention whatsoever of allowing the micro-nationalist miasma which has just drenched the Balkans in blood to develop in Turkey. Turkish public opinion need have no fear of our being tempted to encourage any separatist claims whatsoever. On the other hand, the values we subscribe to include respect for human dignity the world over and the right of European citizens to keep their roots in their native soil and in the culture of their upbringing. At any rate, that is my interpretation of minority rights. We are not trying to tell anyone what to do, but we must constantly reaffirm that the European Union – as Mrs Malmström said – is not just about creating wealth at home. There are many of us in this House who believe we must go on building Europe to promote and uphold its fundamental values, in the spirit of the founding fathers. That is the purpose of the draft resolution we will be voting on shortly.

Political group: PPE-DE
The arrangements made in Doha are crucial for allowing people in developing countries better access to medicines, particularly those for diseases associated with poverty. My group is of the opinion that Commissioner Lamy has taken some excellent initiatives with a view to making healthcare more easily accessible, including in the poorest countries and specifically in those countries that do not have their own production capacity. I would, however, like to put forward one criticism, although I agree with all the things that have been said here. Access to medicines is not only a question of money. There are two other issues that I would like to raise. Firstly the infrastructure in the countries concerned, and in this case I am talking about distribution and about which people in those countries get access to these medicines. Distribution means that there must be an infrastructure, something that is completely absent in many poor countries. What is even worse: this is not a priority for the regimes in the countries concerned. For example, a person taking AIDS medicines has to take them up to three times a day every day. This means that they have to stick rigidly to their treatment regime and that distribution channels are therefore needed to ensure that the patients concerned can always obtain their medicines. If this does not happen, the remedy will be worse than the disease, because people will become resistant to these diseases and that will ultimately work its way through to Western countries as well. Then new medicines will have to be developed. That is my first point. My second point is that regimes are often, in fact, corrupt. In such cases it turns out that the only medicines that are made available are the ones we have exported to these countries at low tariffs or the ones that can be produced there without patents, and even then they are only available to the better-off and not to the poorest population groups for whom we had intended them. What is more, they are sometimes re-exported or simply exported to Western countries.

Political group: ELDR
One of the Statute’s most controversial features is the amount of remuneration involved, and I welcome the agreement that we have been able to reach on this. I have worked in the field of equal treatment for men and women for decades. Our constant watchword was ‘equal pay for equal work’. Discrimination on the grounds of nationality is no more defensible than that on the grounds of gender. Legally speaking, too, Article 12 of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on the grounds of nationality. Although the European Court of Justice has been consistent in adhering to this principle in its rulings, the fact that MEPs are a special case meant that it could not apply it here. The amount of remuneration is a matter of dispute. Comparing it with the present parliamentary salary, a Dane would regard 50% of a judge’s salary as a lot of money, whilst others wonder why the work of an MEP is meant to be worth only half that of a judge. Whatever the case may be, it is not the MEPs who determine what they are paid; it is the Council of Ministers that has to approve this proposal. Moreover, this new regime will not apply until the next Parliament, that is, to our successors. As regards the pension, I am amazed that the draft report proposed that it be payable from the completion of an MEP’s sixtieth year. (Explanation of vote cut short in accordance with Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure).

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not think it will have escaped the notice of the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council that a good deal of hypocrisy seems to hang over this debate. A few days ago the Director-General of the FAO, Jacques Diouf, noted that, six years after the 1996 summit, ‘for the starving of the earth the bell still tolls.’ All the speakers have noted that 800 million people – including 300 million children – suffer from hunger and that every day 24 thousand people die of starvation. Mr Diouf has declared: ‘Promises have not been kept.’ Worse still, our actions contradict what we say. What actions were expected of us? Here are a couple of examples: investing in the Millennium goals, that is agriculture, health and education; and raising the level of aid from the G8 countries for this great battle to 0.7% of their gross domestic product. We have a long way to go when we think that the richest country, the United States, pays out only 0.1% or 34 dollars per head The way the rich countries ignored this meeting added insult to injury. The Presidents of the United States and of Russia were absent; the Heads of Government of Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Canada were absent. Just Mr Prodi, representing the European Union, was present. All this casts a dangerous and evil shadow over the meeting of 26 August, the Johannesburg Summit. I believe we should remind ourselves that we do not yet have much new evidence on our side to be able to face up to and resolve this emergency. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PSE