GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, when I spoke to you in January during the debate on the priorities of the Spanish Presidency, I stressed that the European Union could learn a great deal from Spain, with its largely successful policy that the Prime Minister, Mr José María Aznar, has pursued for several years. Today I can only repeat what I said then and say it more firmly, in the run-up to the Barcelona European Council. At Lisbon, against the backdrop of a difficult international economic climate, the EU Heads of State and Government expressed the desire to make the European Union, in the medium-term, one of the most competitive, most dynamic and most prosperous regions of the world. The Barcelona Summit must ensure that this desire does not turn out to be a vain hope and that the economic, social and environmental reforms contained within this ambitious objective are carried through to completion and that they are not allowed to be deferred. We must take the euro as a starting point to achieve a seamless Europe, where the markets are fully integrated, a Europe where businesses, workers and students can use the whole of the Union as a reference and as a sphere of action. There is no better way for our fellow citizens to achieve social integration than by undertaking a professional career. The new phase in the employment strategy must place more emphasis on the structural barriers to job creation, on the tax regimes and social welfare systems, and enable closer cooperation between the national services that are tackling unemployment. In all these areas, it is not the time to withdraw into oneself, to be overcautious, or reckless. Just as some countries of the European Union are single-handedly conducting a policy resulting in restricting people’s will and ability to start up a business, work, and therefore hire employees, other countries of the Union, of the eurozone, are establishing an environment enabling everyone to develop their spirit of initiative and creativity. I therefore hope that the Barcelona Summit is an opportunity for Europe, for the whole of Europe, to move in another direction, which encourages dynamism, entrepreneurial freedom, competitiveness and responsibility.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will confine myself to making a number of comments about HIV/AIDS. Although a great deal has already been done, it is certainly not enough, and in the long term, the costs will be higher if we fail to act than if we provide massive assistance now and spend what sounds like a lot of money. However, HIV/AIDS is not just a health problem. HIV/AIDS is a threat to society as a whole. The death toll from AIDS reverses the modest successes achieved in the past. In a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy is falling dramatically. Men and women of working age are dying in increasing numbers, and this leads to educational deficits, for there are regions where the number of teachers dying of AIDS is higher than the number of new teachers who can be trained to replace them. The result is a drop in the standard of education. This is exacerbated by the fact that young girls are no longer able to attend school because they have to care for their parents who are sick with AIDS. In Swaziland, for example, school attendance among girls has fallen by 36%. HIV/AIDS also causes malnutrition and starvation, for a rural population which is sick cannot cultivate its fields, or can only do so to a limited extent. In Burkina Faso, agricultural production has therefore fallen by almost a fifth. Millions of children are orphaned, facing an uncertain future. These examples could be continued ad infinitum. They show that HIV/AIDS worsens the plight of the poor immeasurably. To put it another way, every euro spent on prevention, treatment and healthcare infrastructure is worthwhile, not only to benefit the individuals but also to boost economic and social capacities. To this end, the EUR 1 billion being demanded is money well spent.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, entirely in line with the people of Europe, on 30 January last the European Parliament, with a comfortable majority, declared itself to be against unilateral military action in Iraq. Such a war, we said, would not be in compliance with either international law or the United National Charter. An illegal and neo-colonial war is currently underway. Every day it shows us its real face. Instead of condemning it and calling on the Security Council to ensure that international peace and regional peace are respected immediately, the European Council of 20 March was unable to agree on anything other than an anodyne declaration. This declaration said that the United Nations must continue to play a central role during and after the crisis. The word ‘continue’ here is doubtless a bad joke which slipped into the text by mistake, because before the crisis the United Nations, as we all know, had been flouted and swept aside by the United States, with the complicity of two Member States of the European Union. The absence of any formal Commission proposals and the rule of unanimity no doubt explain why the European Council was incapable of looking after the interests of the European Union, and incapable of saying, loudly and clearly, that the interests of the Union are best protected by multilateral action and that the rule of law is always preferable to the law of the strongest power. President Bush now has the war he always wanted, the war that he decided to wage a long time ago. As one French newspaper described him, he is in the position of a new-look Doctor Strangelove. Ample proof has now been provided that some Member States do not want an independent common foreign and security policy. Well, political Europe will be constructed without them, in the same way as monetary union was.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is a crying shame, to my mind, that we are not legislating on climate change today, because, given the remarkable profession of faith I have witnessed here, I do not believe we would have as much trouble passing legislation as we have had in recent months. I say that with the benefit of my experience as a rapporteur in this field, during which I have often detected a certain scepticism towards climate change. Let us, then, learn the lessons. First, by moving towards sustainable forestry management, laying greater emphasis on indigenous species and less on foreign ones; laying emphasis on multiple uses of woodland, because the presence of people, through activities such as hunting, tourism, beekeeping, forestry, grazing and agriculture, is the best deterrent and surveillance tool. Let us also learn lessons, however, about climate change: fires, which make an instantaneous contribution to climate change by producing large amounts of carbon dioxide and reducing our carbon sink capacity, are increasingly a consequence of climate change. We are locked on a collision course with climate change. The 1990s was the hottest decade for two hundred years. Last summer, record high temperatures were reached in various parts of southern Europe. Scientists suggest that temperatures will rise by 5.8 degrees over the next 100 years. On the domestic agenda, first of all, we must therefore follow up the positive efforts we have already begun in the field of transport, through the trade in emissions and through reduction measures in the industrial and energy sectors. On the world stage, however, we must also pressure the United States to adopt the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto is hardly a giant stride forward: a reduction of just 5%, when the scientists are telling us to reduce worldwide emissions by 70%.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on Thursday, we are due to debate and vote on the Zappalà report on the recognition of diplomas. Although there is no reason whatever why the debate should not be held on Thursday morning, I would ask that we defer the vote on this report until the sitting in Brussels at the end of the month. There are two reasons for this request, which I am making on behalf of my group. The first is that there are a few amendments that still need to be checked before they go for translation today, and there is very little time left in which to do it. I believe that the total number of amendments will be over 300. The other is that a large number of Members of this House are flying off to India on Thursday morning for the Social Forum. The recognition of professional qualifications is such an important topic, and one that affects so many members of the public, that it really would be sensible and proper for there to be a very large number of Members in this House to vote on it. That is a reason for us to do it at a time when we can guarantee that many of us will be present, and so we ask that the vote on this report be held in Brussels at the end of the month, but that the debate should still be on Thursday morning. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The future of care for the elderly must not be reduced to a sectoral, or even simply humanist concern, and even less so to purely financial thinking or concern for financial viability. Are these generations an asset to modern society, yes or no? Do our societies have the means to provide them with a decent future, sufficient means for care, and therefore a high-level retirement worthy of our times, yes or no? My reply is yes, a resounding yes. In France today, 40% of people retiring receive less than EUR 1 000 per month. Statistics indicate that by 2005, 30% will be approaching the poverty line. So yes, of course, funding for social protection needs to be reviewed. The problem is deciding on the principles according to which this should take place. Asking questions about the future of retirement and care therefore equates to making social choices. How can we address the causes of the debt, how can we increase the number of those participating in the national solidarity effort? By combating unemployment by means of employment policies or by making redundancies and closing businesses? I would also like to voice my opposition, as others have already done, to Article 10(c) of the report in particular, which advocates, and I quote, ‘the creation of an internal market in health services and products’. This would open the way for the attitude of pension funds which are more interested in gaining a market share than in worrying about any kind of health policy. I personally cannot envisage care being distributed according to budget. Is there not already a risk when, for example, in the United Kingdom, dialysis is no longer funded after the age of 75? On the other hand, I am sure that social benefits such as those under the French retirement system should be strengthened. In France, seven trade unions have been asking for this recently. Their joint platform demands a high-level retirement provision. They are also calling for demonstrations throughout the country on 1 February. Lastly, we have the resources to ensure a high-level retirement provision. As recommended by one of the amendments tabled by my group, we need to study new ways to fund legal retirement systems, in particular by extending social contributions to all financial income, applying the same rates as for salaries. Lastly, I would like to express my total opposition to increasing the duration of working life in France and in Europe, as recommended by the Barcelona European Council.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The services sector is of fundamental importance to the future development of the European Union’s economy and already accounts for the largest share of its GDP and more than two-thirds of employment. It therefore deserves our full attention to ensuring improvements in its quality and to maintaining employment. The main concerns of the Commission, however, as stated in its communication, focus on establishing an internal market for services, studying the obstacles to the free movement of services across national borders, proposing their removal, and working towards speeding up the liberalisation of postal services, the distance selling of financial services, acquisition proposals and value added tax on digital products. The rapporteur, as well as agreeing with the Commission proposal, highlights the need to speed up and complete the process of liberalisation in sectors such as postal services, electricity and energy, which we are bound to reject, since, in general, this is designed to demote the State to a role of merely regulating the activities of public services, establishing supposedly independent regulatory bodies, which are directly or indirectly controlled by economic and financial groups. By and large, the results of liberalisation are redundancies, increased prices for public service provision, a reduction in the quantity and quality of service provision and the rejection of the right of universal access to public services. – Khanbai report (A5-0263/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I would like to make a statement on this International Press Freedom Day on the situation in Tunisia and request that you intervene. I will do so when you consider it to be appropriate.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the Spanish state, fundamental rights are being violated by terrorist killings, extortion, threats and violence. Faced with these, the response, under the rule of law, must not be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but the application of democratic law and scrupulous respect for the human rights of all citizens, including the perpetrators of violence. Nevertheless, the actions of the Spanish Government do not respect the rights of prisoners and their families. Prisoners are moved further away from their homes and not allowed to study in their mother tongues, thereby preventing them from registering in universities in their communities. All of this goes against the constitutional objective of rehabilitation and social reintegration of prisoners with a view to achieving a fairer and more civilised society. It is also unacceptable, in a state which purports to respect the rule of law, that the government has ordered the closure of two news organisations. These closures were furthermore of a pre-emptive nature and no sentence has been passed for any crime. This is all the more serious in view of the fact that one of these daily newspapers – Egunkaria – is the only source of news written in a minority national language – Euskera – which we are obliged to respect and not to discriminate against under the terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Having always been a campaigner for an industrial Europe and, therefore, for a European industrial policy, I have supported Mrs Zrihen’s excellent work and followed it with interest. I should, of course, have preferred us to have gone much further regarding the measures to be implemented (including in the constitutional framework), as well as where the environmental issues, not forgetting the social and human dimensions, were concerned. The political and economic power relations in Europe and in Parliament have, of course, limited our achievements. For all that, the pace is to Mrs Zrihen’s credit, and, because it is a move in the right direction, I have supported her report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I wanted to take the opportunity to inform you and the other delegates of the fact that Mr Paul van Buitenen, the Commission official who, as you know, has played a not insignificant role in the uncovering of the previous Commission’s failure, received a royal honour in the Netherlands last week. I would like to add in all modesty that at least in the Netherlands, his work has always been – and still is – greatly appreciated.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I fully endorse the previous speakers' comments, and I assume that there will be a majority in favour of the Damião report tomorrow. There are many reasons for this. The Commissioner is absolutely right to describe biotechnology as the undoubted key to the future. Some have grasped this already; others will take longer to do so, but it is undoubtedly the case. Mr Liese is absolutely right: biotechnology will also help us find solutions for sustainable development. I would like to add an explanation here, for biotechnology does not work with 'classical' thermodynamics, but with irreversible thermodynamics; in other words, it works with very small potential differences to produce a very substantial impact. Otherwise, we would not grow old, but would leave this mortal coil at the age of 15. In other words, biotechnology has many benefits, and this is widely recognised. Indeed, 'red' biotechnology is already recognised by large sections of the Green Party today. The problem is this: how do we deal with green biotechnology? This may also have to do with the fact that many people in Europe say that they do not need it; they say they have enough to eat, and the problem is distribution, not new products. There is a very different view in the developing countries, however. For example, if I have a product which can be produced using a minimum amount of water, or have a species of rice which contains specific vitamins, this is a matter of survival for many people in the developing countries. It does not matter to us, because we can buy other products with our large amounts of money. What does this mean in practice? It means that the development of biotechnology, including green biotechnology, in Europe could help many other people. Let me clear up one misunderstanding at this point, which has also played a role in our own group. It has been claimed that we aim to combat hunger in the world with biotechnology. This is not what is said here. What we say is that biotechnology alone cannot defeat hunger in the world, and that other measures, such as better distribution of the food available, are far more important. That is what it says here. Let me clear up this misunderstanding from the outset. However, biotechnology can make its contribution to reducing hunger in the world. Let me conclude with one further comment: our conflict here in this House is not that we will reject the Damião report tomorrow, but that we will vote differently during the legislative process. This is why I call on everyone to conduct a much more far-reaching dialogue here in this House, and with the Commission, on these issues. Otherwise we will continue to live with this dichotomy, which we are finding so difficult to cope with. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to give an explanation of vote on the BSE feed resolution. I voted against whole herd slaughter because I do not believe it is the best way to eradicate BSE. I have heard that there are some farmers who, rather than report they have an animal with BSE, shoot that animal and bury it. I know that in France they have had whole herd slaughter and this does not seem to be the best way forward. Even the Scientific Steering Committee says it is not necessarily the most effective, and feed cohort slaughter – which we have in Britain – is effective. I also voted against Amendment No 7 because I do not believe it is possible, but I did vote for the resolution as a whole, especially the ban on the mammalian meat-and-bone meal feed for all farm animals, as we have had in the UK since 1996. I voted for the resolution because we have to have strong rules applicable across the EU.

Political group: ELDR
We Swedish Social Democrats abstained in the vote on Mr Oostlander’s report on illicit drug trafficking. We think it important that the Member States’ cooperation in combating drug trafficking in Europe should be strengthened. We are therefore well disposed to the Council’s framework decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Unfortunately, Mr Oostlander’s report contains amendments which restrict the purpose of the framework decision. We believe that the framework decision should apply to all drug trafficking and not only to serious and international trafficking. The fight against drugs and their misuse must be conducted at all levels: prevention, rehabilitation and the fight against crime. We are concerned about the trend we are now seeing towards greater leniency in quite a few Member States where so-called soft drugs are increasingly ignored. These are the gateway to hard drugs, which lead to abuse and social destitution. One condition of an effective drugs policy is, therefore, that efforts are made to eliminate all types of drugs.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European reaction, which has been somewhat more coherent than usual, has come at the right time. It has now become quite clear that Mr Sharon’s policy is leading nowhere. When there are no political prospects on the horizon, the Old Testament prescription of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ leads directly to horror and to chaos. Bloodshed leads to further bloodshed. This is a return to the Middle Ages, even to prehistoric times. It is therefore high time that the Council of the European Union, the Commission and all our governments spoke up, loudly and clearly, whatever the President of the United States might think. It is Mr Sharon, and not Mr Arafat, who has the power to end the conflict. How can he do this? Simply by complying with international law, by ending the repressive occupation of Palestine and by withdrawing behind Israel’s internationally recognised borders. The best way to protect both Israeli and Palestinian citizens is to re-establish a proper border between the two peoples. The way out of the deadlock of hatred does not lie in the humiliation and the destabilisation of Mr Arafat. It lies in land distribution and in acknowledging Palestinian nationhood, not in the medium term, but immediately. Mr Solana, Mr Patten, you must state this quite clearly. This is the urgent message that all of Europe’s representatives should be conveying.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it seems appropriate to me that Commissioner Fischler should come before this Parliament today to deal with the Morocco question. I think it is entirely appropriate. What I think is totally inappropriate is to have merged a debate on four resolutions that the Committee on Fisheries considers highly important for the future of the common fisheries policy with a debate on the Morocco question, which will inevitably take over from the other debates planned. I think these are two entirely distinct debates, which should have taken place at separate times during this Strasbourg part-session, and each one should have been given the importance it deserves. As that has not happened, we Members above all who have little time will be obliged either not to talk about Morocco or not to talk about the other reports and thus the future of the common fisheries policy, and both options are lamentable.

Political group: Verts-ALE