GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The Commission’s proposal to award such widely varying amounts of aid from the Solidarity Fund is the result of the very different assessments of the damage caused undertaken by the governments concerned and submitted to the Commission. Those regions affected by the Prestige disaster are set to receive less than a fifth of the amounts Portugal and Italy are to be awarded following the fires and the earthquake. This is due to the Government of Spain adopting a mistaken strategy. It understated the extent of the disaster. Consequently the regions affected will receive far less from the Community than they are entitled to. The EUR 8.6 million in question is the only additional sum Spain is to receive further to the Prestige disaster. The only Community aid received to date resulted from reprogramming funds previously allocated to Spain. In the light of research such as that undertaken by the Barrie de la Maza Foundation, this is a derisory amount. This research sets the damage at between EUR 4 000 million and EUR 6 000 million. According to the Government of Spain it is only EUR 436 million. The Exxon Valdez accident was comparable to the Prestige disaster. Then, the United States estimated the damage at USD 10 000 million.

Political group: PSE
Thank you, Mr President. I too should like to add my words of praise to Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, the rapporteur. In addition, I should like to thank the other shadow rapporteurs for their fruitful cooperation. This is modern environmental policy. We are supporting pioneering businesses, instead of what we usually do, namely coasting along at a European mean rate, and granting the countries that are lagging behind another three years’ respite. Nearly the whole of Parliament will be voting in favour of individual producer responsibility tomorrow. This is new. Nine years ago we saw the adoption of the packaging directive. We were on our own with our plea. We opted for producer responsibility rather than individual responsibility in respect of recycling cars. And now, tomorrow, the long-awaited moment will arrive. Individual producer responsibility. Why are both major groups now adopting the Green line? One reason is that pioneering businesses have now started lobbying. Electrolux in Sweden deserves credit in this respect. A year ago, Philips was still opposed to the concept, but it is now keeping a low profile. The well-known environmental principle is: the polluter pays, not: polluters pay. And certainly not: consumers pay, as is the case in the Dutch system. There is a collective system in the Netherlands. Everyone – every consumer – pays a waste disposal fee. This system encourages laziness in producers. Responsibility for individual products stands for innovation, which benefits the environment and, ultimately, pushes the price down for the consumer. If a business makes a product which lasts twice as long, the recycling costs will be twice as low. If they stop using dangerous substances, they will not need to pick up the bill for disposing of these later on. The new regulation will enter into force in 2006 if it is up to Parliament, or in 2007 if it is up to the Council. In my view, this would be a good time to review the Dutch system as well. In that case, we will be able to avoid the two Europes which Mrs Jackson referred to, and we will not have to wait for the ten years on which we agreed as a compromise. We must, however, convince the Council tomorrow, as the Council has produced shoddy work. Countries can choose between an individual or a collective system. That does not work. We have one market and we thus need one system for the whole of Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
2003 was an even blacker year for human rights, a year in which the people of Iraq were subject to the unprovoked and murderous attack of the USA and its European allies, while the people of Afghanistan and the Balkans continue to sigh and bleed beneath the boot of the conquerors. The crude interventions by the imperialist powers, with the fomentation of conflict in every corner of the world, are a daily occurrence. The murder of the Palestinian people continues. Human rights are trampled over on a daily basis, while poverty and misery in both the third world and the developed countries grow worse. The ΕU and other imperialist centres bear almost sole responsibility for this situation. The resolution, despite its positive references, states that 'progress has been made' on respect for human rights, 'in particular through the European Union's commitment'. At the same time, it fully supports the hysterical stance of the EU and the USA on terrorism and says nothing about the trampling underfoot, on the pretext of combating terrorism, of basic democratic and social freedoms or the countless violations of the USA, simply hinting at some, without saying who is responsible, with the exception of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. For these reasons, we MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece did not vote for the report. We express our support for the peoples who are fighting against the New Order for their rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The directive proposed by the French Republic is based on the mutual recognition of deportation orders as soon as they are issued by a Member State of the European Union. The Communist Party of Greece rejects this approach because, at a time when deportation orders are already being abused in various countries of the European Union, the new directive will foster further violation of the law. Experience has shown that the administrative authorities are even prepared – all too prepared – to issue deportation orders against legal immigrants who happen to violate certain rules (including the highway code), using the pretext of the threat to public order and national security. The new law on aliens currently passing through the Greek parliament contains provision to this effect. For these reasons, we voted against the Deprez report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, reforming the Rules of Procedure so as to enable Parliament to function in a particularly efficient, democratic and transparent fashion was certainly a very major challenge for the rapporteurs. I think it can also help to consolidate plenary's political image. It is therefore very important to steer clear of every tendency to make plenary's work bureaucratic. On behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I welcome the incorporation of proposals for dialogue with the European Central Bank and also those on the economic policy guidelines. In this context, I would like to emphasise that relationships between the institutions change over a certain period of time. We really do have to change the nature of these relationships and fill them with new life over and over again. This should be a general characteristic of future debates on the Rules of Procedure; these debates should not be matters of no consequence, but should make it clear that, in this Parliament of ours, rules are not made as ends in themselves but, on the one hand, they are made in order to improve the quality of the work done and to tighten up working procedures and give them more focus and, on the other hand, in order to bring to light those essential aspects that are important for enhancing Parliament's political standing in the eyes of the public. It is at this point that I have to touch on something which, in my view, the rapporteurs and we as plenary have to reconsider. I consider Amendment No 59 to Article 110a to be problematic. I can see the justified concern to do everything possible to really get the right and important political debates conducted in plenary, but not all debates on foreign or security policy are, by definition, of greater value than, for example, the issues that are brought to a conclusion in the specialist committees, because it has become clear that only a huge majority can prepare the way for a second reading and for success in a contest with the Council. The new rules must not lead to a situation in which, at the conclusion of a debate in a committee, we organise non-existent pseudo-majorities to vote against a report in order to comply with the formal requirements for getting it debated in plenary. I really would consider that an avoidable piece of bureaucracy. Perhaps the rapporteurs will come up with a better selection procedure and thus enable us to reach agreement this week. I really do think it important that this amendment should not be adopted in the form proposed. I would also ask the rapporteur to clarify what he expects Parliament and the committees to do with Amendments Nos 87 and 88, as we are not an executive, for which farthings or pennies or cents and ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I share the view that the directive to be drafted here is a fundamental one, and it is our common opinion that asylum law is in urgent need of harmonisation. Between the rapporteur's approach and that of the , however, there are fundamental differences. What are these differences? You propose a common approach to dealing with subsidiary protection and the protection accorded to refugees. We are opposed to that; we want separate directives. You propose extension of protection far beyond the bounds set by the Geneva Convention. We want the Geneva Convention retained. You want to take family reunification much further than consensus in this House has previously allowed. We want the nuclear family. You want to grant subsidiary protection, for five years and with a residence permit, immediately. That does not make sense, so we want protection to be given for as long as it is reasonably needed. So it is that the measures you are presenting here do not ensure that help is speedily given to real refugees under the Geneva Convention, but rather incite the use of asylum for immigration by economic migrants, and that tends towards its misuse. What we find lacking in the Lambert Report, though, are primarily calls for quick procedures enabling us to decide in the minimum of time who is a refugee and who has a chance of asylum. At present, that amounts in any case to some 90% of applicants for asylum. Your report contains no reference to an EU-wide list of safe third states and states of origin. It contains nothing about applicants being required to go back if they are not given permission to remain, nor does it contain measures to ensure that they do so. Nor does it contain any demand for the European Union to conclude agreements with third countries, countries of origin and transit countries, to take applicants back. Finally, it contains no firm demand that Dublin II be used to prevent asylum shopping. In so many respects does this report contradict our thinking that I have to say that the is unable to support it unless the relevant changes are made. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I and everyone in this House condemns sexual abuse of women, or of anyone for that matter, and any delay in bringing to justice those who perpetrate it, whatever their creed, nationality or profession, should rightly be condemned. I cannot, however, support this resolution which targets one specific church; a church which has acknowledged and condemned the cases in question and which has made clear it is taking measures in cooperation with the competent church representatives and civil authorities against the perpetrators involved. It is also supporting the victims, as it does sexual-abuse victims, through its outreach programmes through the world and it is taking steps to prevent a repetition of these terrible incidents. Regretfully, it must be said that resolutions of this nature suggest an ulterior motive for political reasons, which appears to be the deliberate discrediting of the Catholic Church and the Holy See on an international level and possibly forcing its removal from international forums, where it is actively promoting the dignity of women and mothers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, at last we have a Charter of the rights of the European citizen with an entire article – Article 25 – dedicated to the elderly. If, as I hope, this article becomes part of the Treaty of Nice, the elderly will at last be protected by a constitutional Charter of Fundamental Rights. I know that many of the representatives of the Committee which prepared the Charter contributed to this success. I would like, in particular, to thank Mrs Van den Burg, a Dutch Social Democrat who, together with others, worked particularly hard on Article 25. I will always welcome and applaud support for pensioners and the elderly, from whatever quarter it comes.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Brussels European Council confirmed our worst predictions. The powers that be took a colonial stance towards the candidate countries; they set accession terms and conditions, limited funding between 2004 and 2006 and reduced funding in real terms under the ΕU budget for 2007 to 2013, a move that will affect all the members of the enlarged ΕU. Yet again, the main victims of these decisions are the workers, who are expected to bear the entire cost of enlargement, in that appropriations for so-called real cohesion have vanished into thin air. They are closely followed by farmers in the Member States and candidate countries, who will see their income eroded as the result of cuts in agricultural spending. Negotiations with ΝΑΤΟ on a European army are in keeping with the plans of the imperialist warmongers. The ΕU is being placed under ΝΑΤΟ without any guarantee as to the inviolability of its Member States' borders, it is bowing to pressure from the USA and it has appointed Turkey to judge developments in south-eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, ‘washing its hands’ of any conflict which this may provoke between Turkey and the Member States of the ΕU. The people of Europe have woken up to the negative implications of these developments and are reacting against these prospects, refuting these options and fighting against the new order, war and imperialist plans.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I agree with you when you state that the laws of the International Maritime Organisation must be changed. What we must do now, however, is seek an appropriate strategy with which to do this. We already have the US Oil Pollution Act, which is a step in the right direction. The best strategy for amending, for changing international legislation is to pass a specific European law. The rest will follow as an inevitable consequence. Why not give this a try? Could it perhaps be because some Member States such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Greece are opposed, as happened at the Copenhagen Council? We must bear in mind that there have been no accidents in the United States in the last fifteen years, but there have been in Galicia and in Brittany. There have been accidents in the European Union.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we realise that 55% of European farmers are over 55 years old and only 23% are less than 44 years old, we must inevitably conclude that the future of farming in the European Union is under threat. The situation is even more serious in my own country, where these figures are 66% and 15% respectively. In the mid-1980s, the CAP began changing in order to improve measures for direct control of production with the aim of preventing surpluses and guaranteeing the stability of prices and incomes. However, the other side of the coin as regards opting for stability in this way has been less flexibility in access to farming, which particularly penalises young farmers, first of all because of the difficulty in gaining access to quotas, production or premium rights. Secondly, young farmers are penalised as a result of increases in land prices due to the increase in value created by the quota systems. Furthermore, it is well known that many Member States have not implemented measures that in any way address the concerns of young farmers. I shall give the example of my own country where, after an initial phase of enthusiasm when we joined the EU, in recent years we have become more sceptical and the activities of the organisations most representative of young farmers have even been penalised. For this reason we must, as a matter of urgency, adopt certain fundamental measures which are, in fact, in line with the rapporteur’s proposals. These are, specifically, to create special reserves for quotas and production rights solely for young farmers, to increase support for setting up a first farm and investment in farm properties, to establish a special scheme for low-interest loans to supplement other investment aid, to establish conditions for the proper functioning of an early retirement scheme for older farmers, which will speed up the process of renewal and, of course, to adopt training and information measures. The Commission must now urgently table proposals for measures for action and the Council must adopt them. Unless this happens, we will be taking an irresponsible attitude that will put the continuity of farming in Europe, with all that this means for our culture, at risk. To conclude, I wish to thank Neil Parish for his outstanding work on this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Ancient Roman jurisconsultants used to say that ex facto oritur jus (the law is formed from events). I think that credit must be given to Messrs Dimitrakopoulos and Leinen for laying the first foundations of a new foedus (treaty), a kind of pact on European unity which is organised around differences and which attempts mediation and, in particular, to find basic principles and unities. Europe still has a lot of work to do in order to build a democratic future. However, some points have now been identified: a foreign and security policy needs to be a truly common one. Indeed, I think that, in addition to banks, the economy and social and structural policies, the common foreign and security policy will be another driving factor towards true integration. We need a European Parliament that is the general legislating body of the Union – like the Council – that participates fully in appointing members of the other institutions and is able to establish a relationship of trust with the European Commission, which is no longer weakened by the double qualified majority now necessary for a motion of censure. We need a Council of Ministers that decides by a majority. I think that other issues, such as the greater integration of the national parliaments in the Community’s decision-making process, are useless elements that just complicate matters. Local regions and communities should also participate with more dignity at the stages of creation and implementation of Community law. The part provided for by the provisions on the Structural Funds could become the basic principle for the new European construction. The European Parliament must play a truly constituent part, and continue the spirit of Alcide De Gasperi, Schuman, Adenauer and Kohl to stay in the tradition of a people’s Europe – but it has had important supporters in other political families as well, such as Altiero Spinelli, François Mitterrand and Henry Spaak. We are approaching a time that will be decisive for Europe’s survival as an entity and as a model. The attacks are no longer military, but economic and political, and the adversaries are no longer those of the Cold War. If we want to equip ourselves in order to overcome the challenge of the new millennium, then we will have to equip ourselves with the necessary legal and institutional instruments, in the belief that Europe will remain Europe only if it is prepared to carry out self-examination and accept this giant leap towards the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our European constitution, our Treaties, state that we are responsible for improving the workplace environment in order to protect the health of employees. I have the impression that this has often been forgotten, especially in the context of this public debate. The ignorance of the press – sometimes the quality press – also confirms this view. In addition to the usual objections from industry, massive lobbying was, of course, carried out by the music industry as well – not the dark forces, but quite specifically the music industry. This outcry raises three interesting points. Firstly: The general public's lack of awareness that since 1986, employees in the music industry have been covered by a directive which is still in force. All employees are covered, except for seamen. This is now being rectified. Secondly: It reveals the lack of monitoring in the Member States, for if better monitoring had been carried out, the groups affected – employers and employees – would not be in such a state of shock today. Thirdly: It also shows, of course – and I say this critically – the very poor representation of employees' interests. I would like to send the Commission a copy of a letter which I received from the Swiss Musicians Federation about a hearing in 1996, which shows very clearly, Mr Pronk, that damage to hearing is always to be taken seriously, regardless of whether someone works in the construction industry, ceramics, or a music company or orchestra. (Interjection: Or even in Parliament!) Or even in Parliament, but fortunately, most of our colleagues are not as noisy as that! Of course, there are rules at national level. As a left-wing traditionalist, too, I believe that the state and the employer have a duty to protect workers from workplace hazards. This is precisely our task, and in my view, with this directive, we have achieved this goal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, doctors since the time of Hippocrates have known that our health is dependent on our environment. Media coverage in recent years has only confirmed people's concerns. Today's epidemiological landscape has changed dramatically. It is dominated by cardiovascular diseases, cancers, allergic conditions and respiratory diseases. These diseases have many causes, which are often complex and interact with one another. These causes are often uncertain and some are not yet known. It is recognised, however, that the environment, in the widest sense of the term, plays a leading role. Our physical environment is thus one of the major risk factors for the health of our citizens. I will not dwell now on the dangers presented by polluted industrial sites or nuclear power plants. Above all, we must from now on take more account of the immediate environment that causes thousands of cases of cancer. Chemicals, electromagnetic waves or urban and atmospheric traffic pollution: these are the major challenges for public health in Europe. Our behaviour and our way of life encourage an excessively rich diet, and stress and the intensification of work give rise to many health problems. For example, we must take a strong stand against smoking, in particular passive smoking and smoking around children. We must now put in place strong regulations allowing smoking to be banned in the workplace and in public places. In the face of these challenges, we are concerned by the weakness of the Commission's proposals. The call for a still more specific and more ambitious strategy, which will be able to rise to the health challenges of the twenty-first century. This, may I add, is the direction taken by the amendments we have tabled. We must tackle the problems at their source by putting forward specific actions right now, while accepting the inherent uncertainties of scientific knowledge. The strategy must therefore be firmly based on the precautionary principle and the principle of prevention. In this context, we are calling for a significant strengthening of the strategy of reducing exposure to risks. The ask for these various major lines of thinking and action to be taken into account, so that the European Union is able to deal with the fears and expectations of our fellow citizens and, above all, with the revolution in public health that we must carry out.

Political group: Verts-ALE