GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, obviously we are delighted at the change in policy promoted by the new Israeli government of Mr Barak and the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. Today, we must support by every means possible those forces in both Israel and Palestine who wish to come to a definitive agreement. In this context, the Israeli Government must refrain from creating new installations unilaterally, carrying out expulsions of Palestinians and maintaining its settlement policy in East Jerusalem. We also think that it is important to continue and intensify the Community “People-to-People” programme mentioned in paragraph 11 of the resolution. Peace between these two States, Israel and Palestine, will be a lasting one only if their economy develops within the framework of regional cooperation favouring development which is sustainable and equitable for all parties – cooperation which prioritises the most vulnerable territories. We are thinking, for example, of the problem of water. The European Union must target this objective. It must also initiate the negotiation of Euro-Mediterranean Agreements with Syria and Lebanon and update the agreement signed with Jordan. The statements by the Council President and Commissioner Patten seem to us to be heading in the right direction.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would also like to add my voice to those who this morning do not wish the current conflict in the Basque Country to be misinterpreted, because, Madam President, words are also lethal weapons and also lead to deaths in the Basque Country. There must be no such ambiguity, when it comes to analysing death, in a forum such as the European Parliament, which is the temple of democracy. Madam President, you will be very welcome in the Basque Country. You will speak for the enormous majority of this House, because the enormous majority of the Basque people are against those people who, while claiming to speak for the Basque people, ride rough-shod over freedoms and fundamental rights. Mr Gorostiaga represents nobody but that minority which, showing a complete disregard for the best European democratic traditions, tramples upon fundamental rights. Madam President, go to the Basque Country, speak for us and show that we are crying out – hopefully not in the wilderness – for this to be the final death. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, our political group regards the main features of this proposal very favourably. The problems associated with waste are among the greatest environmental problems we have to tackle, and we like the idea of finding an overall solution whose objectives are, in the end, to reduce the total quantity of waste, to increase the amount of recycling and, at the same time, to reduce discharges of hazardous substances in connection with the treatment of waste. A cleverly thought-out directive can also give a boost to better product design on the part of the big manufacturers. Even at the first reading we had achieved fairly broad compromises in Parliament, and I think it has been a strength that we have been able to retain most of these compromises at the second reading too. It also means that we are in a strong position in relation to the Council of Ministers when we reach the conciliation stage. I would thank the rapporteur for his valuable cooperation and open-minded attitude. When it comes to the directive on hazardous substances, there is one aspect we are particularly pleased with, and that is the proposal that a ban on hazardous substances such as lead and cadmium be introduced by no later than 2006. Nor must this present any obstacle to those countries which wish to progress more quickly and which already have more progressive legislation in quite a few of these areas. Where the WEEE Directive is concerned, the fundamental issue for us is that of manufacturers’ direct liability, which must be as clear as possible. On the one hand, it is an issue of principle that manufacturers should pay their own costs. On the other hand, direct and total liability on the part of manufacturers means that there would be a genuine incentive for product development and for making different products as easy to recycle as possible. The Council’s proposal can be improved in a number of further respects. For example, small manufacturers should be included. We also wish to avoid the problem of free-riders, to which I think Amendment No 92 may be a good solution. We also, of course, support the demands for higher recycling quotas, as well as the specific minimum levels of collection per person.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have a couple of questions for the Commissioner. If I have understood correctly, she rejects any mention of the European Parliament in the programme. Is that correct? Secondly, she also rejects increasing the programme, even though the Commission proposes to diminish the amount for other social actions in the next year by 17.5%. Is that also correct?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I too say bravo, Commissioner. Well done. For the rest, it never fails to astound me just how united Europeans are on the question of climate change and the measures needed to counter it. I think that climate policy is a policy people can identify with in Europe and we should turn this to our advantage. I also think that it is our duty to work on the American public, so that they follow our lead. Perhaps, in this case, we are one step ahead of the Americans, just as public opinion on other questions is often one step ahead of Europe. I should like to comment on one point of view: the impact of this climate policy on energy policy. The whole point of climate policy is that it requires us to put a price on CO2 in the future. Let us suppose that your estimates are right and that CO2 costs about EUR 30 a tonne. That means that electricity from brown coal will rise by about 3.5 eurocents and electricity from hard coal will rise by about 3 eurocents. The price of renewable sources of energy will not rise, i.e. they will become more competitive. But nor will the price of nuclear energy rise. As is it not excluded from emission trading and is only banned where there is joint implementation, this works to the advantage of nuclear energy. This completely changes the weightings within the energy spectrum. That is not the subject of this evening’s debate, but it will be subject of debates over coming months and years. I just wanted to point that out. For the rest, I share the view of many of my fellow members who said that this is a process. We have only just begun it and we must stick with it. The very fact of having been there is, I think a very good thing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the humanitarian situation was appalling prior to the war in Iraq because of the embargo. It is now disastrous. We have all been aware of that for a long time, however. It is not news. When our delegation of 31 Members of the European Parliament went to Baghdad two months ago, we met the UN agencies, who warned us. Their representatives told us that, if there was a war, the situation would be disastrous. I am therefore very pleased to say that the UN did not wait for Europe’s support to address the humanitarian situation. I consequently believe that Europe, which was unable to condemn this war and call for it to be brought to an end, should not try to salve its conscience by debating the humanitarian situation in this House. Of course, we should shoulder our responsibilities, but there is no point in making a much overdue statement on this issue. I am therefore against such a statement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to raise two different points. First of all, I would like to point out that, with regard to the very legitimate question about the lack of time for Question Time, we cannot reduce the length of the Strasbourg sessions and then worry about the lack of time we have in which to deal with problems and propose to finish things off by overloading the Brussels agenda. The terms of the Treaty make it quite clear. The Brussels sessions are intended to complement the Strasbourg sessions and we cannot, therefore, make them more intense, when we are not fully using the time that we have at the part-sessions. This must be reiterated, otherwise we really do face the prospect of having sessions that are utterly disorganised. Mr President, I have a second brief comment – completely unrelated to the first – which is to do with the Minutes that you approved with your customary diligence and your usual skill. I would simply like to say, and I think that this can be added, as I made this comment earlier, that I abstained from voting on the resolution on Gothenburg – I did not vote in favour.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the planned liberalisation of the traditional national postal services raises the inevitable question as to what the postal services will consider their core business to be in the future. In other words, what will the postal services be prepared to do themselves, what will they want to do together in international cooperation and what will they no longer provide? This question should be answered in light of the fact that the age-old monopoly has de facto been undermined by all kinds of courier companies and by technological developments, such as fax and e-mail. But then again, the central theme of the liberalisation of the postal services is employment. Past experiences have sufficiently shown that early retirement schemes and voluntary redundancy schemes often have an undesired effect. I would remind you of the fact that the Belgian telephone company had to recall employees who had been sent into retirement in order to prevent too much know-how and expertise from disappearing from the company. Once again, the point of discussion in the liberalisation of the postal services will no doubt be a reduction in the workforce. One should, however, be very aware of the fact that if people are encouraged to apply for voluntary redundancy, the company will primarily lose those people who already work under pressure or who can easily find employment elsewhere, in other words, they are often the people which the company in question needs. In my opinion, it would be a sign of well-thought-out human resource management if the Commission were to share a number of these concerns, so as to ensure that a sensitive sector such as the postal service is liberalised with minimum impact on social conditions.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, there is a lot in this discussion with which I can agree. The euro is not only a means of payment. Instead, it is part of an economic policy and an important key element of EMU policy. If the euro is to function, a lot of things are clearly required. Mr Gasòliba i Böhm indicated a number of them in his report, and other factors were also addressed in the debate. Much more harmonisation and coordination of economic policy is required. Mr Gasòliba I Böhm goes so far as to talk about federal budgetary principles. What is required is coordination on tax policy, a structural policy and greater mobility for the European labour force. In short, a range of measures may be taken to reduce the large differences that exist between national economies. For example, it would be possible for Ireland and Germany to have the same policy – two countries that, at present, quite clearly have a need for different policy approaches. Mr Gasòliba I Böhm talks about the need for institutions. If the matter were to be summarised, there could even perhaps be talk of the need for a European state power in the economic sphere. He proposes having an economics tsar when it comes to the eurozone’s relations with the surrounding world. It is precisely all this that gives rise to such a lot of scepticism towards the euro project in my own country of Sweden. We fear it would mean the small economies being integrated into a European economy in such a way that they would be unable themselves to exercise control and that would not offer any democratic guarantees, either. There is therefore considerable hesitation, and more than half of the Swedish population will presumably vote ‘no’ in the forthcoming referendum. That is also why the Swedish referendum will be followed with such great interest in the candidate countries. So far, only 12 of what will soon be a total of 25 Member States are in the eurozone. The 13 countries that are still outside it have obvious doubts. People are aware of the ups and downs of the German debate and of the problems there are, and they think it is better to wait. I appreciate, however, that there may one day be a need for lower denomination notes, especially if economic problems were to arise in Europe.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thank you, Mr President, on behalf of my group, I too should like to congratulate Mrs Gillig on this excellent report, and the Commission on presenting this communication on labour standards. Respect for core labour standards in an ever more globalising economy is a matter whose importance has to be continuously reiterated and driven home. It is to be welcomed that this is exactly what the Commission has done. On behalf of my group, I can therefore say that we are completely behind this report. I also welcome the fact that this report has clearly brought the International Labour Organisation (ILO) into the limelight. Within the UN family, the ILO is the only organisation that is not only made up of officials and national authorities, but where employers’ and employees’ organisations equally have a leading role. This role is not only advisory and observing, like many NGOs, which carry out excellent work by the way, but in this tripartite organisation, the social partners co-manage and help develop policy 100%. This commitment by the social partners, who themselves play a key role in the economy and the labour market, is invaluable. I should like to stress this within an EU context, because I have noticed that when we were discussing this report in committee, some fellow MEPs had no, or hardly any, idea about this. Fortunately, the amendment that was submitted by the Group, which threatened to negate this supporting role, has been withdrawn. I am grateful for this. Another quality of the ILO is that it combines legislation with very practical, technical support on site. Both these elements ensure that the ILO is not merely a paper tiger, but actively plays a key role in the general debate. However, in my view, we should, in the international debate, prevent social issues from always ending up on the ILO’s shoulders alone. The WTO and other organisations too, should ensure that they take account of social issues in their policies in a pro-active manner, and they must also see to it that they take a more active part in the world committee established by the Director-General of the ILO, Juan Somavía.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in this long peace process in the Middle East, we feel as if we are on a kind of roller coaster. Time and time again we feel as if we are slowly and painfully climbing a slope and then, when it seems as if we are about to touch the sky, we plummet sharply back to square one. This is a hellish and never-ending rise and fall – and it is also a bit like the legend of Sisyphus – which threatens to sap the strength and even the hope of almost everyone. At the current time – and despite having heard optimistic words – one has the impression that we are once again at the bottom of the curve, with an Oslo Process which has been forsaken by many, with the conflict on the ground at an impasse and with elections in Israel which promise to offer an outcome which is far from favourable to peace. Nevertheless, it is now that we have to recharge the batteries of our confidence and increase our efforts. Today this process can be summed up in two affirmations: firstly, we cannot lose sight of our inescapable objective, which is peace in the region, a peace which must be established and consolidated on the basis of an acceptance by all sides of the rules of international law and decisions of the UN Security Council: and, secondly, Europe must once and for all, in attempting to resolve this conflict, assume the responsibility that befits our political influence, our values and our interests. It is neither dignified nor coherent to continue to renounce the leading role which we should play, restricting ourselves to being, rather than negotiators, mere spectators to what the United States does or does not do. We are, unfortunately, still in the old situation of ‘paying but not playing’. The actions of Ambassador Moratinos have been magnificent but, in order to be more effective, he needs political support which, unfortunately, he is not being given. I believe that the Union should no longer delay in taking a leading role, and it is not enough to make statements but it should be precisely defined and filled with content including firm economic and political commitments.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Commissioner, for coming today. It was my request in the Agriculture Committee that we had a debate on this and I much appreciate your coming. I also echo Mr Adam’s feelings. I would like to express my heartfelt sympathies to those in Britain affected by it and my sorrow that we may have exported this disease. On that note, I would like to say how worried we are. However, it is vitally important that we use everything within our power to stop a future occurrence of this. I want to know whether or not you will be looking – and you did indicate this in your speech – at strengthening phytosanitary measures so that we can have healthy, safe food within the United Kingdom and within Europe. Could the Commissioner answer two quick questions. Has the British Government applied for full funding from the EU, using agrimonetary systems and other systems, and what is the position of sheep in Germany? Have we finally sorted the problem of infected sheep?

Political group: PPE-DE
We are delighted that this report, to which we contributed several amendments, has been adopted. We now hope that the Commission and the Member States will take the necessary steps to make the Erasmus programme more accessible to students from economically less well-off groups, particularly by optimising coordination between national financial support for higher education and Erasmus grants, with a view to promoting social equality in access to the programme and the widest possible take-up. We cannot continue to accept that the overall participation rate in the programme is barely above 50%, and that even so, some 57% of Erasmus students have been affected by worrying financial problems. As the report points out, it is regrettable that the Erasmus programme has essentially benefited students from social groups whose parents have a high level of qualifications, are relatively well-off, and/or come from countries with higher levels of government support for students. Hence the need for measures to help achieve its initial objective of enabling 10% of all Community students to spend part of their degree course in another Member State, and not just 1% as happened in 1997/1998, making it accessible to students from economically less well-off groups. - Boumediene-Thiery report (A5-0207/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, I do not think that Morocco will agree with what you have said about Perejil Island not belonging to anyone. I would like to ask you this: does the Council consider that it is fair and democratic for the Spanish government to claim that the citizens of Ceuta and Melilla do not want to be Moroccan because they are Spanish, while, on the other hand, at the same time refusing to allow the citizens of Gibraltar to decide freely in a referendum whether they want to be British or Spanish?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, speaking as a Basque and, therefore, as a Spaniard, I would like to thank you for the sensitivity you always show with regard to the problem of terrorism in the Basque country. On the other hand, and I am sorry to have to say this, I must point out that from time to time on these occasions when, in theory, we are supposed to be observing a minutes silence, there are people in this House who continue to talk, even on the telephone, which seems to me to show, amongst other things, a total lack of consideration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I asked for the opportunity to speak in order to draw attention to an aspect of the coming reforms of the Public Service Statute that has been neglected in the discussions to date. I am talking about the condition under which the unmarried partner of a European official may claim equal treatment. In other words, to be treated the same as if he or she were the married partner of the official. I believe the Commissioner when he says that he has often done that, that the purpose of the whole reform operation is to change an obsolete regime to reflect modern times. I believe, however, that his proposals do not meet this criterion, because he only wants to treat so-called non-traditional forms of cohabitation as equal if the people concerned can provide formal recognition by a Member State and only in cases in which they do not have access to legal marriage. This approach introduces discrimination by nationality, continues to give priority to marriage and does not solve the problem. Many unmarried couples will be unable to meet these conditions. The Commissioner is obviously overlooking the fact that there are not only couples who cannot marry, but also those who do not wish to. His proposal furthermore does not do justice to the special position of European officials. I am therefore pleased that in the report by Mr Medina Ortega and Mr Harbour, which we have before us, a better solution is being put forward in Amendment No 39. This is a solution which, incidentally, has been practised for many years by the European Central Bank. This rule is characterised by the beauty of its simplicity and also offers equal treatment to those who form a de facto household. Up to now I have not heard the Commissioner say that he would not follow Parliament’s wish on this point. May I then conclude – and I remain optimistic – that he will in fact do so and that he will use all his verve and eloquence to plead for Amendment No 39 in the Council too?

Political group: PSE
I have voted against the report because, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the EU really does not have, or should not have, its own forestry policy. The purpose of the report is, therefore, in the first place to appropriate EU funds (EUR 67 million or slightly more than SEK 600 million) to Portugal and Spain in connection with the forest fires by which these countries are often hit. That is certainly a lawful aim, but it is scarcely a European matter to provide economic aid in relation to forest fires generally.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should like to thank the Commissioner for his answer. Of course, the European Parliament appreciates the Commission’s efforts to promote Community policy on environmental protection and, especially, its efforts to incorporate the environmental dimension into all policies, i.e. mainstreaming. However, since you mention the problem of the pollution of the Danube, I should like to ask a supplementary question: you are obviously well aware of the recent accusations by the Romanian Minister for the Environment, Mrs Lilian Mara, who maintains, and many of us share this view, that the ecological damage caused to the Danube by the NATO bombings is far worse than the damage caused by the recent leak of cyanogen. As we all know, the bombings destroyed bridges, oil refineries and chemical factories, which damaged the ecology of all the areas along the Danube. I would like to hear your views on the matter, Commissioner: do you intend to take action for the economic, ecological and cultural restoration of the areas which were damaged?

Political group: PSE