GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I thank Mr Solana and Mr Patten for continuing, in spite of everything, with their already excessively longstanding efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. We are clearly facing a frustrating, cruel and, if I may say so, surreal, situation. It is surreal because we are facing a situation in which the Prime Minister of Israel does not support the constructive conclusions of his Foreign Affairs Minister. It is also surreal because Mr Sharon – who regrets not having destroyed Mr Arafat, who he describes as irrelevant, in Beirut in 1982, and who calls the Palestinian Authority a terrorist organisation – is meeting with three notable members of this so-called terrorist organisation. It is surreal because Mr Arafat is under great pressure to combat terrorism but, at the same time, Israel – and we are allowing it – is bombing and thereby destroying the resources available to the Palestinian Authority for combating that terrorism. This surrealism, however, is welcome if it can bring us closer to peace and development in the region, not only for Palestine. I would like to say however – and I hope I am wrong – that I hope these talks by Mr Sharon with these supposed terrorists from a supposed terrorist organisation, are not simply another attempt to gain time before his meeting with President Bush in Washington tomorrow. I would like to ask the High Representative, Mr Solana, a question relating to the famous seized vessel, the Karim-A: it appears that the people who are trying to ascertain whether the evidence of Iran’s involvement is reliable are working on the basis of stronger evidence than the appearance of arms which are ‘made in Iran’, because we all know that the fact that arms are manufactured in a particular country does not necessarily mean that they are supplied by the government of that country. Mr President, I say this – and I will end here – because, in this era of trilateral evil, and the demonisation of the situation and the desire to spread suspicions all over the place, it could be a fatal error to encourage suspicions of this type in relation to those invisible enemies which Mr Bush is currently dealing with.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the ideas you have put forward, particularly on the very specific proposals concerning the people affected and who are expecting a lot from the European Union, in terms of the help that we can offer them. In the days immediately following this terrible storm I wrote to you myself with a request for you to ask the French authorities to redraw the boundaries of Objective 2 so that all areas devastated by the storms in France and elsewhere could benefit from Objective 2. I think that you must have done so, because you have not mentioned it. In fact, we all know that anyone who does not live within the perimeter of an Objective 2 region will find it all but impossible to obtain aid. We should therefore put this situation right immediately. You also know that this will not only be a short-term problem, but also a medium and long-term one. Let me explain. I was in the region of Lorraine at the time of this terrible storm which destroyed around 20% of deciduous forest. Indeed, for some ‘forestry’ districts, which have lost 20% of their trees, this represents a huge loss. We know, for example, that it takes between 150 and 200 years for a tree to reach maturity, so the loss these towns will suffer will not be spread over one, two or five years, but over many more. The towns concerned estimate that it will be spread over 40 years. I think that consequently it will be extremely difficult indeed to compensate these rural towns through subsidies for losses in their financial revenues. I think that this is something which we should continually bear in mind so that we do not lose sight of it in our various policies. It is true that the problem of the forestry sector is an extremely complex one. Indeed, you spoke of releasing funds for timber storage on the grounds that its price must not depreciate. On the other hand, districts which have not been affected by the storms will also suffer, as the National Forestry Office has decided to freeze cuts in forestation for four years. Those districts which have not suffered losses will therefore see their incomes decrease in any case. I am telling you all of this to illustrate how complex the problem is, and I thank the Commission once again for extending their analysis of this situation as far as it could. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, although there has indeed been an economic disaster, the real ecological catastrophes are still to come. As you yourself said, Commissioner, these disasters or storms do not always have natural causes, and we think that these are the first signs of climate change. We should therefore review our policies in order to take account of this fact.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I would like to continue with the subject of the Thursday sitting. I would like to draw your attention to the plan for Thursday’s sitting, which has the debate on reports continuing after 5.30 p.m. until 6.30 p.m.. Surprisingly, the report to be discussed at that time concerns the competitiveness of forest-based industries, which I tabled for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. After that, at 6.30 p.m., there is the vote on this report, which affects the jobs of four million employees in Europe and competition in this industry and other related industries. In my opinion, if we have to debate a report like this one, which affects the jobs of four million people, at 5.30 p.m., then the plan for Thursday’s sitting has run up against very big problems as a result of the Friday sittings being discontinued. I know that a few dozen people at most will remain to vote. It is degrading for Parliament that we should adopt a position on a report on such a wide issue with such a small group of Members. For this reason I would prefer it if Thursday’s evening sitting could be used just to vote on urgent matters, and voting connected with actual reports could be switched to the agenda for the next Brussels part-session.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, something like one in four Europeans die of cancer, but thousands of people could be saved every year if high-quality early detection programmes were in place in every Member State. We all know that. That is why I very much welcome the Commission’s initiative in recommending to the Member States that they introduce screening, the need for which is confirmed by scientific evidence. I see it as absolutely scandalous that, for example, only eight Member States have to date started to offer national programmes for mammography screening to all, even though, according to WHO, this cuts the mortality rate by up to 36%, and even though the quality guidelines for this were presented as long ago as 1992. Commissioner, I regret that I cannot avoid issuing what is both an appeal and a warning. If we are to really take this Council recommendation seriously, you cannot at the same time allow all the screening networks to be forced to close down their operations. At the end of the day, it was the work of the European Cancer Networks that led to this Council recommendation. If you, the Commission, want to have real credibility in the fight against cancer, then you have to find a permanent place for screening in the new action programme on health. We must not allow a recurrence of what happened this year, when the word ‘cancer’ no longer appeared in the action programme’s work plan, which – as you know all too well – eventually, and inevitably, resulted in support for all the screening networks being discontinued. Commissioner, we will still, in future, need the European networks to draw up new guidelines and improve existing ones, for only by these means will we achieve equally high standards of screening across the EU. In addition, though, we need the networks to support the new Member States, where, as is well known, action is even more urgently needed.

Political group: PSE
The issue here is the revival of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The people who live around the Mediterranean have needed no vote by a European Parliament to establish relations among each other, as they have done since time immemorial. For thousands of years, the Mediterranean has not been an obstacle, but a link between peoples. It is significant, however, that in this, the twenty-first century, where the means exist whereby humanity may form one united and fraternal community, society is going backwards. Now that the Mediterranean is no longer a physical obstacle as such, thanks to modern transport facilities, it is being surrounded by legal and material barbed wire. Those who live in the southern Mediterranean, in Morocco, governed by ‘our friend, the King’, in Algeria, governed by the dual dictatorship of the military and Islamic fundamentalists, in Tunisia, which only French diplomats consider to be democratic, find it increasingly difficult simply to come to France despite the fact that there are a thousand links between these peoples of the southern and northern Mediterranean. Therefore, if we want to talk about a ‘Euro-Mediterranean partnership’, the least we can do is to allow those from the Maghreb who live in France to live there with dignity, as human beings in the twenty-first century, whether they are there legally or illegally. They should be granted all civil rights, in particular the right to vote and the right to move freely throughout the European Union. Rather than opening the borders between EU countries slightly only to close them even tighter on the outside, Europe must be an open Europe that shares its resources with the peoples of these countries, which it pillaged, colonised and exploited for so long.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, France is still in shock as a result of this terrible disaster which has caused the death of dozens of people. No sector has been spared: road, air, rail, ports, electricity and telephone infrastructures, homes, school buildings and historic monuments, not forgetting of course agriculture and forestry, which have been devastated in many regions. People may have been traumatised in the areas where the damage has been greatest, but nobody has given up in the face of these terrible circumstances. In the days immediately following the storms, a fantastic spirit of solidarity and generosity developed, and still exists. Elected representatives, municipal employees, citizens of France and of all Europe have rallied round to offer their help. I would like to pay special tribute to the commitment and the devotion of the public service employees who gave freely of their own time with the sole aim of helping those affected, to re-establish normality with regard to electricity, transport, telephones and the utilities. At this testing time, demonstrating their efficiency, the public services have reminded everybody how essential they are to the life of our society. I think that this should give us pause, particularly with a view to halting the current process of deregulation and privatisation. It is, of course, also crucial to tend to wounds, to make preparations for reconstruction and repair, while learning all the lessons that this terrible disaster has to teach us. I clearly heard what Commissioner Barnier was saying and indeed I appreciate his proposals, but personally, I would not set emergency goals and long-term goals in opposition to one another. On the contrary, I think that the situation shows in hindsight the relevance of the proposal my group made to restore a specific budget line for natural disasters in the Union. It would also be appropriate, of course, to increase the Structural Funds for reconstruction in regions which have been devastated, particularly appropriations for rural development, for agro-food measures and for forestry. I took particular note of the proposals concerning Objective 2. Finally, the idea that this type of disaster is connected to climate change due to the consequences of human activity upon the environment has been advanced. If this idea were to be confirmed, the European Union would have to make considerably more effort to ensure that the commitments given at the Kyoto Conference are respected. It should also make protection of the planet a priority, rather than the unbridled pursuit of profit.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have to say that I have listened to this debate in increasing amazement, especially when I hear the group talk about our resolution. It appears that the group only wants to hear one-sided applause and praise about everything which took place in Portugal. We too would like to congratulate you, Mr Gama. There is a certain likeness between you and your distant predecessor Vasco da Gama at Cape of Good Hope. The employment situation in Europe seems to be slightly improving. As far as this is concerned, congratulations are in order, also for the fact that many fine promises have been made. It remains to be seen whether they will materialise or not. This is not so evident as the Summit is remarkably opaque about this, especially if we consider the three most important Prime Ministers involved. First of all, Mr Blair. He makes enough noise but is destroying the British industry by setting the exchange rate for the pound far too high. The French government is drafting a definition of social policy which implies that nothing should change and, as such, will run into problems with this social policy. This is a problem too. Finally, there is Mr Schröder, who does nothing at all, so we can be very brief about him. Mr President, in a situation such as this, surely it cannot be expected from the Group of the European People’s Party and that we come up with a ‘hurrah’ resolution. We are satisfied with what the Portuguese Presidency has said and brought about, but we really need to wait and see whether action will follow. We have listed a few problems. There may be reservations regarding issues which have been presented by both the and our group. However, we as the Group of the European People’s Party and – and this is clearly spelled out in the resolution – proceed on the basis of the model of a social market economy, and this is what it is about. It has taken s a very long time to get this far and we are pleased that they are nearly there. We also hope that they will implement it efficiently. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen any evidence of this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are just about to vote, for the thirteenth time, on a resolution concerning Tibet, and we have to say, if we examine the effect these have had in the past, it is exceptionally poor. This is why I am addressing the Commissioner. I would like the European Union, with its three powerful institutions, to join forces and appeal to world opinion, the Chinese authorities and especially the World Bank. As fellow MEPs have already explained, we need to put a stop to internal colonisation, this brutal murder of the cultural identity of the Tibetan population. That is only possible if the World Bank stops financing precisely the opposite, namely the import of Chinese people with a view to destroying Tibet’s original culture. How can we justify spending taxpayers’ money on this kind of practice? I hope you will help us bring about a U-turn, as requested by my fellow MEPs in the amendment; a U-turn which prescribes that, if there is no change in three years’ time, we will eventually decide to recognise Tibet’s provisional government rather than continue to tread water.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the report submitted by the Ombudsman demonstrates that this is an important and necessary post. We must safeguard the financial resources of the Ombudsman’s office. This is something that is not always taken sufficiently seriously in Parliament’s Committee on Budgets. I will use the same figure of speech the former Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko of the former Soviet Union used referring to the present Chairman of the Russian Social Democratic People’s Party, Mikhail Gorbachov: the Ombudsman must have iron teeth. With regard to human resources management in the EU the Members of the Commission act as both prosecutors and judges. This is shown once again in the case of Martha Andreasen. It would be appropriate if the impartial Ombudsman were also to look into that person’s punishment. The present system does not provide legal protection. It would also certainly be worth the Ombudsman’s while to undertake an own-initiative enquiry and report with regard to the administrative practices of the European Central Bank. The bank’s openness and the transparency of its administration represent the worst standards in the EU. It is regrettable that the Ombudsman in his annual report should have to state that the EU institutions have failed both to put the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into practice and implement the decision on the European Parliament’s good administrative behaviour. The remarks about administrative discrimination on the grounds of age or gender are particularly regrettable. In the annual report there are 21 photographs of the Ombudsman, and in most of them he has a gentle expression on his face. When it is a matter of a departure from good administrative practice the friendly exterior should deceive nobody. Our Ombudsman acts fearlessly, like Jaakko Ilkka in the Finnish Cudgel War, against the tyranny of the administrative nobility.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there was palpable shock and disappointment at President Bush's recent announcement that the US will not cooperate with efforts to decrease carbon emissions in the endeavour to stave off the real threat of global warming. The US, with 5% of the world's population, produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases. For President Bush to tell the EU delegation in Washington this week that he acknowledges both the problem and the need to find a solution is hollow rhetoric, when the US distances itself from the only solution on the table, and that a partial solution at best. Kyoto is only the beginning of the way forward. What is President Bush afraid of? Many of the Kyoto signatories, including my own country, are failing to meet our agreed targets; but we must keep trying, we must keep talking – at Bonn next in June or July – and endeavour to reach the targets set for all the difficulties posed in the short term. The longer-term consequences will be far more difficult to resolve. It is not a question of the environment, or of employment. The promotion and protection of economic competitiveness is inextricably linked to the protection of the environment. Well-managed environments are themselves a source of wealth creation through agriculture, tourism and the maintenance of assimilative capacity. Environmental protection is therefore a matter of enlightened self-interest for the future economic wellbeing and competitiveness of Europe, the US and the entire world. Viewed this way, environmental protection becomes part of a virtuous circle whereby a high-quality environment is sustained by wealth, which in turn is sustained by competition, which in turn requires a high-quality environment. Yes, environmental orthodoxies must be constantly scrutinised and re-evaluated to ensure that the protection required is proportionate and effective. What Kyoto requires of us all is just that: proportionate and effective responses to the global threat of climate change. And developed countries and communities have a particular responsibility. Great sensitivity, tolerance and compassion must be employed when it is proposed to apply the environmental standards of the developed world to the economies and environments of emerging economies. We need to acknowledge the resilience of natural systems and their ability subsequently to recover once a plateau of economic stability has been reached. This has been the pattern over most of the developed world. Productivity and profitability are important prerequisites for environmental protection and enhancement. I acknowledge the need for sustained economic competitiveness to provide the very resources required for a high-quality environment. President Bush, there does not need to be any contradiction between these two objectives. It is not jobs or the environment. Please come back on board Kyoto, and be sure you do not mortgage all our children's heritage. Environmental pollution, climate change, is no respecter of borders.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Myller. She managed to get an excellent report adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I have to be honest. The Council proposal is weak, lacks any imagination, any specific goals and is a welter of words. My criticism is also levelled at the four Green Ministers who may have promised progress, but who failed to deliver. Neither can the proposal as it now stands be used as propaganda material for young people, as Commissioner Wallström stated. This is why it should be binned, and the large majority of my group will support the amendment of the Liberals to reject the common position. It is the political choice of the two large groups, the Group of the European People’s Party and and the Group of the . If they vote against and reject the amendment, they too will be responsible for this weak and empty concoction. Needless to say, the will support all amendments to improve the proposal. A one per cent reduction in greenhouse gases annually, certification of wood, sustainably-produced and otherwise, the amendment to which the GUE made reference, the European Investment Bank, the chemicals policy along with the substitution principle. Mrs Jackson, I have to get this off my chest. These are not the inspired ramblings of a Green mind, they are existing policy in Denmark and Sweden, and even the new Danish government, that is from the right-wing school of thought, has no intention of changing this policy. The amendments, which include a legal framework for voluntary agreements between industry and the European Commission, are all sound, but I have very little hope that they will obtain the required 314 votes. This means that, ultimately, the officials of the European Commission will get their way, the same officials who proposed the policy not to present a Sixth Environmental Action Programme under any circumstances. This is why this is a defeat for politics and for European environmental policy. And the key culprit is the Group of the European People’s Party and , prompted by certain officials from the European Commission. But it is still not too late. Tomorrow, we will vote, and I hope that maybe some of the Christian-Democrats will see sense and will be prepared to vote for a number of sensible amendments, so that maybe we will end up with a conciliation procedure, which will have some substance at least and which will not merely be a welter of words.

Political group: Verts-ALE