GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The subject is much debated, in as much as the very neoliberal tendencies of NEPAD raise legitimate questions among all those who dream of finally seeing Africa emerge from under-development. I also support the criticisms made by the report, particularly with regard to the absence of democratic consultation of ‘civil society’, of unions and even of national parliaments. Conducting an independent study on NEPAD’s impact on social rights, food safety, access to raw materials and protection of the environment is undoubtedly the greatest encouragement to emerge. The fact remains that the responsibilities of the EU and of the G8 must not be relinquished, whether this means it is necessary to cancel the debt – which continues to drastically and unjustly suffocate budgets – or a reform and increase of public aid for development. It is estimated that 64 billion dollars are required per year to achieve the goals set by NEPAD. Fund providers must face up to their responsibilities. Welcoming the Heads of State that established NEPAD to the G8 with great pomp is one thing, backing up words with actions is quite another. Finally, the drafting of a legally restrictive framework accompanied by sanctions for businesses that contribute to conflicts would also be appropriate in preventing conflicts that are often murderous.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to express my support for the excellent report by Mr Van Orden on the situation in Bulgaria, which is perhaps unfortunate in Europe to be the geographical neighbour of Romania and therefore to be associated with it, when its situation is entirely different. Today, the situation of Bulgaria is basically quite close to that of Portugal just prior to accession, with the same merits and the same potential for development, particularly in terms of tourism. I think that we will very quickly see Bulgaria swap exporting prostitutes for importing tourists, which will be extremely beneficial for the country’s development. Of course, the rule of law, if it is to be effective, needs to be established through legal methods. Without the rule of law, which is vital to development, Bulgaria will be incapable of constituting, particularly from our European perspective, the frontier region that has come inside the shifting front of EU progress. That is where our Wild West is, our very own America!

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, that is the proposal formally put forward by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. We wish to make sure that this is properly addressed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I know that statistics are dry and boring, and some people even say that they are the most subtle form of lie. Be that as it may, statistics are, it is to be hoped, an important way of decision-makers obtaining information and thus reaching the right decisions. The recommendation for second reading before us is about the Community statistical programme for the next five years, 2003 to 2007. At first reading, the European Parliament called in particular for a significant increase in funding, which seems really essential given the work to be done because of enlargement. The Commission and the Council accepted all our amendments except that one. I can only lament this short-sightedness. In a world that is becoming ever more complicated, and in view of the increasingly close-knit nature of the internal market, European statistics are gaining in importance, and the Commission and the Council in particular need to be aware of this. Unless a decision is reached today, Eurostat will not have any money to start this programme on 1 January 2003, and I therefore call on this House to adopt the common position. I say this in the hope that the Council will this time show more insight and be more open to our wise counsel! (Loud applause and heckling)

Political group: PPE-DE
The aim of Regulation No 1408/71 is to ensure the coordination of the Member States’ social security systems in order to protect the rights of persons moving within the European Union. That is why this regulation is essential, and why its adoption today is necessary. Indeed, I must remind you that the free movement of workers is one of the four freedoms laid down in the Treaty of Rome. Over many years – since 1971 to be precise – this regulation has been amended considerably in order to take as much account as possible of changes in national legislation, to improve certain provisions and to fill the gaps that still exist. Following a great deal of negotiation in the Council and some effective work by our rapporteur, we have achieved a satisfactory balance, taking into account the constraints and characteristics of the Member States’ various social security systems. True, the text could be improved. Nevertheless, it forms without any doubt whatsoever, an important step forward as regards the free movement of citizens. They will now be able to retain their rights to social security when they go to work in another Member State. In addition, their families will also benefit from full health cover. It is for all these reasons, and in particular because of the essential and tangible improvement in the daily lives of our fellow citizens, that I am voting in favour of this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
I should also like to congratulate rapporteur, Mr Florenz. This is an historic breakthrough. Ten years ago, we, as the Group of the , proposed individual producer responsibility in the packaging directive. At that time, we were laughed out of court. We have a packaging directive that, as we say in the Netherlands, ‘is not worth a light’, and that is because there is shared responsibility between the government and the producer. In the case of car wrecks we were almost successful two years ago. In that case, the manufacturers are largely responsible, and it is interesting to see that German industry, which at the time was so opposed to the move, now takes full responsibility. Tomorrow, we shall have achieved our goal, moreover: the manufacturers will become one hundred per cent responsible for electrical and electronic waste. It is not the case that the industry was united on the matter. The largest company in the field in my country, Philips, was decidedly antagonistic. The fact that we in this House achieved a compromise between the various groups as early as the first reading and held our ground up to the night-time session with its accompanying noisy exchanges contributed, however, to our success and, for that, I should like especially to thank Mr Florenz most sincerely.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, the rules of origin are very clear, but the problem is that they are not respected by Israel. For years, Israel has continued to treat illegal settlements established in occupied territory as if they were within its own territorial limits. Even when the former Commissioner Mr Marin was in charge of these issues, there were discussions with the Israeli authorities. That goes back six years and nothing has changed. This is why there are several of us asking you to act and to tell us what you intend to do. Are you, for example, going to ban all new provisions on the cumulation of origin in trade agreements with Israel or not propose any at all? Are you going to name any Member States before the Court of Justice? These are the questions, to which we would like you to give clear replies.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, please let me make three introductory comments. The first is that I am very happy that we are dealing with the Trentin and Marinos reports in a joint debate, because that again gives clear expression to the fact that there is not only no contradiction between the stability and convergence programme and the Guidelines of the Economic Policies, but also that they even complement each other. The second is that anyone comparing the Lisbon objectives with reality will be aware how much there is still to be done, and will see that there have been substantial delays in their being put into practice. The Lisbon objectives, which are to make the EU into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economic area, facilitating sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater cohesion, represent the goal to which all of us – Parliament, Council and Commission – give the highest priority and to which we have committed ourselves. Thirdly, Commissioner, and speaking on behalf of my group, I fully support, as regards their content, the guidelines you have put forward and believe that their main features, despite a number of amendments we have also agreed to, are right and merit our entire support. Our objective is best, and most safely, reached by way of the model of the environmentally responsible market economy. I have to reiterate that, because the environmentally-responsible market economy incorporates on the one hand functioning free and liberalised markets and, on the other, sees responsibility towards enterprises, employees and consumers, along with sustainability, as part of its responsibility towards future generations. I would like to appeal right now to an element among the speakers on the . Let us at last stop playing social policy off against economic policy, and employment policy against price stability. Growth and employment presuppose price stability, and social cohesion in our society presupposes growth and employment. Those who jeopardise the Stability and Growth Pact are mortgaging the future and acting irresponsibly. Those who abide by it have enough room for their political initiatives and investments to manoeuvre. I call for greater consistency in implementing what we have agreed to and adhering to it. The implementation of Lisbon, of the convergence criteria, of the Stability and Growth Pact, of the Action Plan for Financial Services, of the plans for liberalisation, offers enough opportunities for coordination. Coordination at the expense of participation is something we will never agree to, but we will support coordination for the purpose of implementing our common objectives. The internal market enhances competitiveness in Europe and in the world, but it does not ban competition within Europe. We need competition in products and competition in systems! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am pleased that EU leaders will finally address the case for legal migration, although we have to be clear that numbers or quotas must be set at national level and not by Brussels. The Council continues to focus mainly on keeping people out of Fortress Europe. We still have no agreement on integrating legal immigrants, or on core aspects of a common asylum system; no agreement on making racism illegal in criminal law, and no agreement on fighting human trafficking through protection of victims and encouraging them to be witnesses. For all the rhetoric, how many people-traffickers have actually been put behind bars? The summit will look at all the proposals for developing new databases on EU and foreign citizens, including biometric identifiers. This all raises big questions of privacy and civil liberties, but it has been done in secret and with no democratic control. Finally, I hope leaders will rectify their shameful failure so far to act jointly to secure release or a fair trial in a civil court for the 25 Europeans in Guantanamo Bay. We are meant to have a common foreign policy and a human rights policy. So far, for those citizens in Guantanamo Bay, there is little to show for this. I hope that will change at the summit.

Political group: ELDR
I voted in favour of the amended proposal to ban the advertising of tobacco products because all the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs were rejected. These amendments, one: watered down the restrictions in the proposal, two: allowed advertising companies to circumvent them and three: put a question mark next to the legal basis, especially following the annulment of the first proposal by the Court of Justice. However, even this second Commission proposal still has a question mark next to it, based as it is on the internal market rather than the protection of public health.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, looking around the Chamber, I get the feeling that it is not yet clear to some people – most of us, indeed – that meeting the Lisbon objectives, a policy for growth and employment, and hence the Spring Summit, rank alongside the constitution, enlargement, the European elections and the appointment of the Commission as the European Union’s most important policy area and the most important thing it has to deal with this year. I think we need once and for all to stop weeping and wailing and apportioning blame; instead, let us for once remember that we have adopted enough resolutions and set ourselves enough targets, that now is the time to at last abide by the resolutions and buckle down to achieving the objectives. It is positively paradoxical that it should be Germany, France and the United Kingdom who have agreed that they want to plant a super-Commissioner in Brussels to handle economic coordination, that it should be they of all countries, one of which is not in the euro zone and is blocking the constitution that will make Europe stronger on the world stage, and the other two break EU law by breaching the Stability and Growth Pact, even obliging the Commission to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not believe that a super-Commissioner can make up for the Member States’ lack of political will, and, rather than allowing him to distract us, we should once and for all put into practice the resolutions we have adopted, which means putting them to work in the Member States. I have to tell Mr Della Vedova that this also applies to the agricultural budget. The fact is that it was these Heads of State or Government who had already decided that, because the agricultural budget was to remain stable and on this level from 2006 to 2013, no change was possible – something that I welcome. Continually casting doubt on decisions already made, rather than implementing them, weakens us all. There are those in this House – those on the , for example – who say that the Stability and Growth Pact is the reason why the Member States do not do their homework, but I then have to tell you that it is Germany and France – two prominent countries – that are jeopardising the Stability and Growth Pact and failing to abide by it. It is the same two countries that head the list of those who are failing to transpose the internal market directives, and the same two countries that are also foremost in calling for a super-Commissioner. We need stability and growth, for on them competitiveness depends, itself the foundation of growth and employment, without which there is no social cohesion. Let us stop playing the market off against the state, and instead push for our system of the social market economy, which leads to social cohesion. Let us stop playing investments and debts off against each other, and instead stick to that to which we have committed ourselves. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the factory closures planned by Arcelor are scandalous. The group, which is the most powerful group in the world steel industry and is collapsing under its profits, coldly announces that it is going to close a total of six smelting works in Belgium, Germany and France, throwing out thousands of workers, condemning their families to poverty and devastating entire regions. For such a decision to be taken in secret by a board of directors, obeying the demands of a handful of financiers, shows the extent to which the system that you defend amounts to a dictatorship by money. The fact that this can happen, without even inciting a reaction from the political authorities aside from a few hypocritical groans, shows the extent to which the workers are unable to count on the authorities to defend them. We are told that periodical restructuring is inevitable in industry, but why is it always the workers that have to pay for that restructuring, and never the shareholders or the owners of the companies? I know that the problem is not only with the steel industry. At the moment in France the airline Air Lib is also shutting up shop and making 3 200 people redundant. Air Lib is not a steel company, but behind it, two years ago, was the same financial group, Marine Wendel, which made a fortune through the sweat and pain of generations of workers, steel workers, if not their blood. It is the shareholders of the group and their ringleader, Baron Sellière of the employers’ federation in France, Medef, who, by withdrawing their capital, were responsible for the collapse of Air Lib. This is why I say to the workers, both in the steel and air transport industries, and those going through the mass redundancies all over Europe, that we need to fight to establish a balance of power enabling workers to impose a ban on mass redundancies, on pain of expropriation. We need to take from the company profits or if need be from the personal fortunes of their owners and shareholders, in order to provide salaries for all the workers affected by the restructuring.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, is it not absurd that there should be a Council, which appoints a Commission and entrusts it with the drafting of a common asylum and immigration policy, and that the same Council should do everything in its power to frustrate this Commission's proposals? At present, that is what we have to deal with in this area in the European Union, and on a daily basis. I believe that my fellow German Members who are taking no part whatsoever in this debate have good reasons for their absence. I assume that they are celebrating the fact that, from today, Germany will no longer have a modern immigration law, because they have been successful in preventing the creation of a modern law of this sort. That, I believe, is what the should finally ask themselves – they should ask themselves what they think they are doing. If they were to act responsibly, they would inevitably end up sharing with us a concern that there should be a common asylum and immigration policy. But that is not what they are about. The Christian Democratic majority in the European Union has but one objective: integration and the frustration of any reasonable immigration policy. I very much regret this.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, much is being said about how older people will, in future, have to work for longer and about their special significance in terms of the economy, but far too little about how, with advancing years, they need more help and more social and health care. The way in which we respond to older people’s needs and fears is also a cultural issue. In care homes, human dignity and the right to personal freedom are of the utmost importance. There is a desire to live and to strive to live innate in every person, and this mental elemental force must be cultivated. It is, above all, strength of will that makes life significantly easier for old people themselves and also for those who care for them. That is why it is so important that training in all health care professions – from carer to physician – should be developed. Psychological knowledge, empathy and sensitivity are even more difficult to acquire, understand and develop than professional expertise and practical skills. It is not only training, though, that must take greater account of increased life expectancy. Research, too, must commit itself more to gerontology and to the support of programmes in palliative medical care and develop its own Europe-wide networks. More research, and hence greater safety, is needed to better underpin preventive measures. Only if there is interaction between these two will we have a guarantee of being able to keep an eye on costs in health care. In presenting us with the issues and problems of ageing, this own-initiative report highlights one of the major social issues for Europe and calls us to ongoing work on health policy. I would like to express the very high regard I have for the rapporteur and for her work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today is an important milestone because, after many years of debate and findings on the need to reinforce the Union's ability to take prompt, coordinated action on public health threats, we are finally discussing the setting up of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Over the last twenty years, there have been reports of thirty new infectious diseases, or variations on old diseases caused by mutating viruses, or even the re-emergence of old diseases such as tuberculosis, to give but one example. All these crises in the public health sector, such as SARS and bird flu recently, have highlighted the weaknesses and gaps in existing structures. I hope that the Centre, with its small but adequate scientific operating structure, will be able to plug these gaps efficiently. However, if its work is to be satisfactory and efficient, it must be the central reference and coordination point for all the national surveillance centres and reference centres and laboratories of the Member States. I should like to thank the rapporteur because not only did he accept the amendments which I proposed but, subsequently, in conjunction with them, two very important issues were approved and accepted which had not been included in the initial proposal. The first concerns the development of the strategy of vaccinations, which are an extremely important weapon in combating the threat from infections diseases. The second relates to the identification of topical public health issues and the promotion of the relevant, applied research, in order to reinforce our preventive capabilities and promote the efficiency of the coordinated action taken. Mr President, I hope that we will also overcome these final hesitations and that the Centre will soon be up and running, even in its present, restricted form.

Political group: PPE-DE
The shipment of waste is fundamental to the fight in which we, the developed countries, are engaged to maintain economic development and protect the environment. I therefore subscribe to the line taken by the Blokland report. I nonetheless rebel against the obstacles that impede the recovery of waste, which – supported by the Court of Justice’s judgement in case C-228/00 – will penalise my country’s cement manufacturers. Thirty-six per cent of the alternative sources of energy used for the manufacture of cement comes from waste, which basically comes from neighbouring countries. If such shipment of waste were jeopardised, there would be dual emission of pollutants from Belgian cement works; that is to say, pollutants from waste and those originating from the fuel used in the cement works. This dual emission would be costly and harmful to the environment. Moreover, cement works would be vulnerable to job losses in regions already badly affected (Objective 1). That is why I am against the amendments opposing recovery. To make use of the precautionary principle when the answers are known is an admission of powerlessness to control pollution. That is certainly the case when it comes to intermediate waste sorting centres, banned because they are unable to monitor the precise destination and traceability of the waste in question.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to table an oral amendment to Amendment No 192. The old text reads as follows – it is very short: “And furthermore research projects making use of primates are also excluded.” I would like to change that to: “Financing of research projects making use of primates is suppressed within two years, unless it is proved that alternatives are not available.” If this amendment can be adopted, it can be combined with 372. Then we will have a sound text. I have agreed this with Mrs Buitenweg.

Political group: PPE-DE