GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we welcome the Lisbon Summit's emphasis on dealing with social exclusion. That emphasis recognises what is already clear. Despite the gradual increase in economic growth within the Union over the years, there are still millions of people who have not benefited. Indeed, in some Member States, such as my own, which have tended to follow the American model, the gap between rich and poor has been widening. We are also seeing significant numbers of working poor, those who have jobs but cannot afford to live on their wages. There is a still a huge gap between the incomes of men and women, which continues into old age and must be an important issue in the discussion on pensions. Growth alone is not the solution to social deprivation and it never has been. Distribution and equality of opportunity are also important, hence the need to include social criteria alongside the economic goals and the use of appropriate indicators to look at the combined effect. As we have heard, however, Stockholm will not just deal with the Lisbon follow-up. It will be a first step towards explaining how the European Union is going to deliver on sustainable development. It is obvious to us that unless we factor the environment into our economic thinking there will no chance of having a sustainable economy. We have to find an economic path that does not strip the world of its natural resources and produce toxic or greenhouse emissions. That means we have to look at the quality of the economic growth we seek and not just the amount. If 3% growth depends on depleting fish stocks, increasing car travel or cleaning up after crime, it is not the sort of growth that improves the quality of life or quality of the environment for anyone. It is not sustainable and that is why we have urged the use of appropriate environmental indicators alongside the social and economic ones. We can then adopt a coherent approach to sustainable development and see if we really are achieving the results we want.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in view of the Resolution of 3 December 1998, to which the Kuckelkorn report does not appear to contain a reference, Parliament once again is obliged to request that the Commission produce as soon as possible a directive or, as Mr Medina Ortega appropriately suggested, a Community law coordinating the various national laws. The Commission appears to be somewhat apathetic in this regard, and seems to be concentrating rather on producing a directive on prudential rules for pension funds, which is easier to achieve but less effective in terms of decision-making in relation to the elimination of barriers to labour mobility and the coordination of taxation systems. The legal bases are very important, and, clearly, different: in view of the various judgements delivered by the Court of Justice, pension funds could be governed by Article 47 and Article 55, the removal of barriers to labour mobility could be governed by Article 42 and the coordination of national tax systems by Article 94. However, I would stress the need and the desirability to develop a single package, because this is the only way to achieve an overall framework which tones down the extreme positions contained in certain proposals for amendments. I refer, in particular, to biometric risks, which are a very important factor but which should be dealt with on the basis of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the opinion drawn up by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Indeed, making cover for biometric risks obligatory would be likely to make the system very inflexible. I therefore feel that funds which cover biometric risks should receive privileged treatment, and that any inflexibility of the system could, in effect, result in negative imbalances for the beneficiaries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, may I start by congratulating the rapporteur on the report which she has tabled before the House today on the future of the common fisheries policy. It was no easy task and I think that Mrs Miguélez has done a brilliant job. And if the outcome is not to everyone's liking, then it is we who are to blame, not the rapporteur. The House has examined the problems of the common fisheries policy on numerous occasions in the past. This Commission communication is the first stage in the Commission's overall strategy to improve the CFP in the run up to reform. So at this stage we need to lay down a few basic principles and priorities for the future CFP. First, we must ensure that the basic aim of the CFP is to develop the fisheries sector and guide fishing activities towards viable levels from both the economic and environmental point of view. Any other policy would be absurd. Secondly, we must ensure we have a more integrated policy at European level, a more harmonised CFP. The Commission should submit imaginative proposals which help advance European integration. We shall only be able to implement the single market in the fisheries sector if we have uniform joint management of resources for the benefit of a Community fleet.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Moraes, for having made himself so available and for his willingness to work together, and I should also like to thank him on behalf of Mr Mantovani, who would have liked to be here and speak but was called back to Italy on a matter of urgency. The dynamics of immigration in the European Union should be seen as part of a framework that takes account of the benefits this brings to all the parties involved. The Irish Presidency also mentioned this point this morning. Migratory flows must be managed so that they serve the interests of both the host country and the country of origin. Management of these flows may in fact be a response, as has already been said, to the democratic and economic development of the Union. We now need to improve the integration of the immigrants – legal immigrants – who represent a resource, but the immigrant populations must in turn respect the fundamental values of their host countries. A proposal has been mentioned to guarantee citizens of third countries legally residing in the Union the opportunity to vote in local and European elections. It is clear to everyone that such a question should remain a matter of the strictest subsidiarity. I thank the rapporteur in particular for the compromise reached with the Member State governments on setting up a quota system for legal entry into their countries, and thus into Europe, to be offered to the countries of origin and of transit as one of the main incentives for negotiation and agreement on readmission. It is very important to get this kind of collaboration. In any case, this complex issue, together with preparation of policy on the management of migratory flows, must obviously be dealt with at European level as quickly as possible. The rights of migrants must be recognised, but only alongside a policy to regulate these flows, which has to be a strict one. In conclusion, Italy has the second highest number of immigrants in Europe and is the only country in Europe to have very long external borders to the east and to the south. The whole of Europe must take stock of the size and complexity of this enormous migratory and social pressure, because the real problem starts in Italy but is immediately and automatically transferred to all the other Community countries.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like briefly to draw the House's attention to current developments in Cyprus. The Turkish checkpoint has been moved into the buffer zone, thereby hampering the movements of the United Nations forces and cutting off a Greek village. Turkey is a candidate country and should show more willing, through Turkish Cypriots, as regards the commitments which it entered into in Helsinki. The situation could spiral out of control and I would like the support of the House on this and, more especially, of the British Government, which has a special responsibility in Cyprus.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my agreement with the statements by Commissioner Patten and the President-in-Office of the Council, to the effect that we now need to make a joint effort to bring peace to Iraq and thereby stabilise the region as a whole. Not only many European governments, but also Members of this House, have had differences of opinion on the war in Iraq. The situation being what it is, these should now be set aside; we will make no progress by looking for culprits, and our concern must now rather be the development of a common strategy that will help us to resolve today’s problem in a sensible way. We must also see that what the increasing number of terrorist acts in Iraq demonstrates is that the end of the war has brought Iraq no real peace, and that the establishment of a legitimate and acceptable government there is still a long way off. For a variety of reasons – about which there is discussion everywhere – the USA cannot achieve this objective using the means it has employed so far. I believe that President Bush is right to call for a UN resolution on this subject now. It is at this point that I would like to introduce a figure into the proceedings. The USA reckons its monthly commitments in Iraq to be USD 4 billion, which amounts to almost USD 50 billion per annum, a fantastic sum when set against its budget deficit, which is in any case enormous. That alone can scarcely fail to make it clear the need for cooperation in this area. If Europeans can now speak with one voice, then the time is also ripe for us to sit down together and try to work out a new policy objective. This will make it possible to clarify where we go from here, to decide who does what in the civil, military and humanitarian spheres, and thus to divide up tasks in a sensible way. If Europe and the Americans can do this together on an equal footing and work together with the UN in doing so, then I am sure that Parliament would be prepared to accept the Commission’s budgetary proposals and forward them, together with its mandate, to the Donors’ Conference. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of ECHO in Iraq for the fine work they have done, which, I believe, gives us a real opportunity to contribute to peace in the region. There is no doubt that this is in our own interests, as there will be disastrous consequences in store for us too, in both the medium and long term, if it proves impossible to pacify the region as a whole. Considerations such as these should also, however, apply to Afghanistan, and I believe that we should therefore attempt, by means of a new Petersberg conference, to bring about a truly fair balance of power and the equitable distribution of aid, including to the Pathans, in order to establish peace there as well. I get the impression that in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan has such a strategy been in place before now. So now is the time for us to take a deep breath and make a new start together, doing our best in the region’s interests and in our own. (Sustained applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, last night there was a terrible air crash when two aircraft collided over Überlingen near Lake Constance. There is, at present, speculation that some eighty people have been lost, including children who were on a holiday trip. I believe such an event calls for Parliament to express its sympathy to the families of the victims. It also, however, calls on us to consider how such an accident could occur in the first place, and to give thought to whether Europe's present fragmented system of air traffic control, involving military, national and European authorities, might not have been a contributory factor. Pilots report ever more frequently how complicated flying through European airspace has become. This terrible accident, this frightful calamity should prompt us now to really mean business with the European system of air traffic management that we have been calling for.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, whilst the Budget Memorandum for 2003 still leaves many questions open, the economic situation in 2002 is becoming clearer and it is easier to get an overall view of it. I believe that it is not only in Germany that the goal of stabilising euroland by not exceeding a public debt of 3% of gross domestic product is in danger of being missed. The absence of 2%-3% annual economic growth means that grossly excessive unemployment figures can no longer be artificially covered up. This makes it all the more understandable that the backlog of Structural Funds is being treated as if the funds were not there. The prospect of actually successfully solving the problem of mass unemployment in the coming fourth quarter is made fainter by mounting indirect labour costs and the failure of the European Union, among others, to solve the problems caused by distortions of competition. I also believe that the days of public jubilation at the freedom apparently won through globalisation are over. The 2003 budget will instead be measured against the yardstick of seriousness, transparency and honesty. I can recall that Parliament was always more than merely critical of the annual accumulation of financial resources from the Structural Funds. What is decisive for the public's sense of belonging is what goes down well with them. The Commission's non-existent policy on non-existent Structural Funds does little to promote a feeling of belonging on the part of the European Union's citizens. The winter months are going to be the most difficult in economic terms for a long time. The many pledges made in the wake of the flood disaster must at last be worked off at a more rapid pace. If they are not, there is a growing danger of those aspects of land use for which we have already accorded financial assistance from the sources available triggering substantial conflicts between business, transport, housing, leisure and tourism at the various structural levels. The situation is grave, and I assume that it is known that the public are seeing the gap between income and expenditure narrowing still further. They need the money that is kept in Brussels.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In both Amendment No 18 and No 30 it should read “critical loads should not be exceeded”. In place of the word ‘exceeded’ it says ‘reached’, which is the opposite.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome both Commissioner Patten's contribution to this debate and Kofi Annan’s decision to send a fact-finding team to ascertain exactly what happened during the Israeli bombardment of Jenin refugee camp. I am, however, somewhat concerned at the motivation underlying attempts by Israel to delay the investigation. Israel claims that its invasion of Jenin and other areas was an attempt to destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. However, serious allegations have been made that the Israeli defence forces were involved in extra-judicial executions and the use of human shields. If these prove to be true, then Israel itself and its army are as guilty of acts of terrorism as those who plan, support and carry out suicide bombings. When he was defence Minister, Ariel Sharon masterminded the “Operation Peace for Galilee” invasion in 1982. His objective then he claimed was: “to eradicate the Palestinian terrorist threat in Lebanon”. This resulted in the massacre of 800 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. A subsequent Israeli commission of enquiry concluded that he bore responsibility, as they put it “ having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance” Are we seeing history repeat itself? Mr Sharon must take personal responsibility for what has happened in Jenin and elsewhere on the West Bank. It is a consequence of his policies, his prejudices and his hatred of Yasser Arafat. If the UN team concludes that war crimes have indeed occurred, then the international community must take action including referring the matter to the International War Crimes Tribunal. Mr Sharon does a grave disservice to the people of Israel. Single-handedly he has caused his country’s political isolation. Furthermore, he has fed the hatreds that have resulted in the escalation of anti-Semitic activity which I deplore. He humiliated the US Government during Colin Powell’s recent visit to the Middle East. Perhaps, however, this will have a positive effect and lead to a reassessment of US policy in this area and encourage them to abandon their one sided approach of unequivocal support for Israel and instead to work with the EU and others for a balanced, peaceful resolution to this terrible conflict which has already cost too many lives. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, Mr President, this issue is obscured by a great deal of North Atlantic fog. If you ask the intelligence services about the current state of play, a whole load of questions are raised. Let me say at the outset that – unlike you, Commissioner – I am not fundamentally opposed to European shipyards, which are undergoing a major crisis, specialising in scrapping thousands of ships from throughout the world, and doing so under strict environmental constraints, a situation utterly different from that which currently – and lamentably – prevails in India, where the worst conceivable environmental dumping is going on and endangering people’s health to a substantial degree. We certainly do not want that. It naturally follows that we have a lot of questions to put to the British government, but, in its absence, I will use you as my mouthpiece and ask whether these are actually warships. The reason I ask this is that I have had widely divergent information. I am given to understand that warships can be scrapped only in the United States. Or are they vessels used for transport and commercial purposes? How was the transaction conducted? Did one government deal directly with the other, or were international middlemen involved? What we need to know is why the work was not done in the United States. Moving ships across the North Atlantic costs money, of course, and there are enormous risks involved. Was it factored in to the calculations that one or other ship might sink? That would have been a catastrophe of the sort that one would rather not talk about. Without wishing to tread on anyone’s toes, my second question is whether the country for which the ships were destined possesses the necessary infrastructures. Does it have the infrastructures for putting a ship in dry dock, and so on? These, Commissioner, are questions for you to answer; questions that you, as you have just mentioned, should concern yourself with. Is all this in accordance with the Basel Convention on the Export of Waste? We know, of course, that the Americans did not sign it. These questions all call for serious scrutiny before we can come to a conclusion, but, all things considered, I would not want to exclude the possibility of Europeans offering such services to a very high environmental standard. Whether or not a ship is towed across the Atlantic, whether or not it is possible to do that – these are questions to be considered by the experts. Our approach to this topic should be highly critical, but very much in our interests as an industrialised continent, and we cannot of course accept it being confused with other matters. All this I have said in order to drop a hint, and I hope that the interpreters understand what I mean by that.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Karas report was discussed yesterday evening from 11 p.m. until midnight, with low attendance and no journalists. This is scandalous since this is a very important report, and I believe Parliament is doing itself a disservice by systematically relegating legislative reports to the small hours of the morning. How can you expect our legislative work to be respected if we do not respect the work of Mr Karas and others, who have put a lot of work into this extremely important directive? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the quality of bathing water has improved. The water is better and cleaner in the Netherlands and in the rest of Europe. A new bathing water directive is now before us with less red tape, with only two parameters left, but with stricter standards, which is to be welcomed. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has struck sensible compromises. Mr Maaten, the rapporteur, wanted, and still wants, to abolish this directive. Fortunately, the Liberals are on their own with this view. Europe is more than a market and currency. The Netherlands will need to make an effort to comply with both the old and the new directive, and take action instead of moaning. Thanks to the warmer climate, people will swim more frequently and other types of water recreation will also be introduced. The amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are good, except for Amendment No 19. For the sake of a few hundred Scottish sheep, there is a huge loophole in legislation. Intensive farming in the Netherlands also suffers from the spread of disease during heavy rainfall. In the Netherlands, the cows became ill and measures were taken. This should be our response, and not an enormous loophole in what, let me add, is also sound legislation.

Political group: Verts-ALE