GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the Novelli report on the coal industry in the European Union was, as you are aware, rejected by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy on 23 April. That report, far from helping to reach a consensus around the European Commission proposal, which was viewed by the majority of the members of our committee as balanced and comprehensive, meant sudden death for the European coal industry. On the one hand it meant cutting aid to companies in the sector, and reducing the periods within which our industry could receive that assistance. Given the importance of the issue, particularly for the families and regions that depend solely on that activity in the European Union, the majority of the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy came to an agreement on a fair and balanced consensus text that is none other than the draft regulation from the European Commission. That regulation envisages maintaining aid to that sector at least until December 2007. During that period the European Commission will evaluate the development of the sector, both at Community level and at world level, and if necessary will put forward fresh proposals. On the other hand, it should also be remembered that this date is in some way subordinate to the security of energy supply that the European Union needs, as this is a factor that the European Commission will undoubtedly take into account when formulating new proposals. We think that this is an important subject that should be treated as a priority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the attack on a train, which caused the death of 260 civilians and injured more than 150 people on 10 August in Angola is unacceptable and deplorable, especially since, in the weeks that followed, several buses also came under fatal attack. Once again, it was UNITA which struck the blow, thereby continuing to violate the peace agreement signed in Lusaka in 1994, which made provision, amongst other things, for the disarming of the militant rebels. Unfortunately, these acts of terrorism are merely one further stage in the civil war that has been ravaging the country for more than 25 years. Above all, however, these extremely violent acts against civilians only serve to postpone even further the prospect of organising the elections planned by the government for 2002–2003. When he announced, on 23 August, his intention not to stand in the presidential elections, President dos Santos threw the ball back into the rebels’ court. He says that he is prepared to hold free and democratic elections, provided that the war comes to an end. The pause in the fighting and the restoration of a peaceful climate are due, according to him, to Mr Savimbi and his militant movement. Yet Mr Savimbi, the leader of UNITA, says that he wants to negotiate. In reality, of course, sitting comfortably on his diamonds, he wants only one thing: all the power. We are also responsible here, because who is it who supplies UNITA with arms? Who is it who participates in this diamond trafficking? As for the government, it is not transparent either. The lack of transparency in the management of petroleum revenue leads us to conclude that public funds have been used to back up the regime. The Angolagate scandal has revealed the role of Europeans in this affair. The violence has to stop, and dialogue must be initiated as a matter of urgency. Angolans must vote for and achieve peace. The European Union can make its influence felt, and it has a role to play here. It should be reminded of that fact, and we must vote in favour of this resolution in order to go forward.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I submitted a request, which is different to that of Mr Barón Crespo, in that my request is to make other changes to the agenda.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in the debate yesterday a number of speakers from remote parts of the Union drew attention to the potentially severe effects that this new law would have on outlying places. Mr Hudghton, for example, drew attention to the problems of drivers coming from the Hebrides onto the mainland of Scotland and then onwards. Ms Kauppi made similar points as I recall about Finland, and other colleagues made points about Portugal. We were told that during the debate that the intention is to provoke a conciliation and obtain a compromise position between the Commission and Parliament at conciliation. I voted as I did in the hope and expectation that the Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee will take proper and full account of the very severe problems of remote parts of the Union in relation to this law.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I regret the Commissioner’s absence, as I wished to thank her for indicating she was favourably disposed to the creation of a major central axis through the Pyrenees, with significant railway capacity. This would benefit sustainable development too. I also regret the absence of Commission representation, because we would welcome a prompt response from the Commission concerning the Commissioner’s proposal for the new trans-European networks. Finally, I feel obliged to rectify a comment made in the House this morning. Mr Mayol i Raynal proposed the recreation of a State of Catalonia extending from Fraga to Mahon. I am bound to state I am completely opposed to Fraga becoming part of such a state. Fraga has been part of Aragon since the Middle Ages. Consequently, it is not part of Catalonia and never has been. I would like this minuted, please.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Given the current situation of employment, caused in particular by the relocation of undertakings whose priority is profit, without any consideration for the importance of the ‘function of work’ to social development, to the mental wellbeing of workers and their extended families, the European Parliament as the institution representing the people of Europe, absolutely must adopt a strong stance on a global strategy to promote employment and its corresponding social policy in the European Union. We are in favour of a European social policy that runs through all other development and growth policies pursued by the Union. - García-Margallo y Marfil report (A5-0051/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mrs Hulthén and Mr Blokland, on two important reports, not only for us here now but for generations to come. Naturally, my group supports these two reports wholeheartedly. Both show the necessity of integrating environmental policy, social policy and economic policy, if we are really to achieve sustainable development. However, this must happen now and not simply be a goal for the future. The Cardiff Process is good, but it is proceeding far too slowly. It is also very clear that a break in current trends is vital, to put it mildly. As Swedish Minister for the Environment Kjell Larsson says, what is needed now is political courage within all the institutions and in all areas. The Commission’s document on integrating environmental policy into economic policy states that there is no contradiction between economic growth and environmental protection. If this is the case, how can we explain the fact that increased production and increased consumption have eaten up all the environmental initiatives which we have so far carried out and are carrying out? Such a view does not fit in with the times. Therefore, economic development must be adapted to ecological requirements, otherwise there will be no sustainable development. We must all realise this. The proposal from the adopted by the committee states that the adverse environmental impact resulting from some EU subsidies must be examined, particularly with regard to the current energy policy and common agricultural policy. They must simply be phased out. We cannot afford to keep them in place. Mrs Hulthén also mentions, as other people have also said, that the strategy must not only be for the EU but must also constitute a global starting point. Ten years after Rio, this really must be addressed... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we are no more likely now to adopt a resolution which, on the pretext of combating terrorism, actually seeks to criminalise social demonstrations. Led by the Bush Administration, the various European governments are in the process of developing a real arsenal to curb freedom. It is now common to draw parallels between immigrants, young people, delinquents and terrorists. This is essentially what the far-right trades on. In France, not content with placing members of trade unions behind bars, the government is preparing to pass laws to punish beggars, homeless people, gypsies and prostitutes. In Italy, Mr Berlusconi hopes to prevent a meeting of the European Social Forum from taking place in Florence by lifting the Schengen Convention in order to close borders. We are still opposed to any action which seeks to terrorise a nation, whether this be a sort of private terrorism such as that waged by Osama Bin Laden or state terrorism by Ariel Sharon. We will not stamp out this scourge by restricting democratic freedoms but rather by eradicating its sources, namely poverty and oppression. It is the tyranny of banks and imperialist wars which turns people into Osama Bin Ladens.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are not being difficult about the final vote on Mr Herzog’s report, but I do ask you to have the vote now, because many Members are already leaving. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Commission’s reply seems very reasonable and I have no objections. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for resolution (B5-0316/1999) tabled by Ms Caullery and others, on behalf of the UEN Group, on the WTO Millennium Round (Parliament rejected the motion for resolution) *** Joint motion for resolution(2) on the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle (Parliament adopted the joint resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0313/1999) by Mrs Jackson, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the follow-up to Parliament's opinion on genetically modified food labelling (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for resolution(3) on Chechnya ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-designate, the members of the French Socialist delegation are anxious that the institutions should run efficiently, and this requires the rapid establishment of a strong Commission, strong in the sense of respecting the Treaties, which means that your mandate and ours must coincide. The French Socialists also have a certain awareness of their political responsibilities. This is why tomorrow, they will vote in favour of your investiture, because we believe that the composition of your Commission is balanced, in line with the Council. We judged the quality of your team’s members. But as you know, as you must realise, this is by no means a carte blanche or a vote of confidence. As far as we are concerned, the political aspect is not an issue. Our expectations of you rest on your programme. We expect commitments from you, to define and defend the European Social Model, to re-establish balance, as the Treaty of Amsterdam suggests you should, between the policy of competition and other policies. To ensure that the great reforms of the labour market structures do not necessarily result in greater unemployment. In short, to take into consideration these great projects which will enable Europe to experience the kind of growth which creates jobs and which does not make thousands more people unemployed. We also expect you to implement a development policy which will allow Europe to maintain its position of solidarity between the North and the South. We also expect you to let us know how you think international standards can be developed. Do you think that it is up to the WTO to lay down what the internal legal system within the Union should be, or do you think that it is up to us to define the rules which will serve us? Regarding institutional matters, we are pleased with the stances you have taken on giving the Intergovernmental Conference a broad mandate, and we await with interest the report of your three Wise Men. But we are anxious to find out who in your team will be responsible for the development and the drafting of the Charter of Rights. We shall also be asking you about this idea of the future make-up of the Union. This is a matter of urgency for your Commission. Briefly, the setting-up of your Commission has allowed new relations to be established between your institution and ours. We are delighted about this. By holding these hearings, our Parliament has shown what a modern and democratic Parliament is capable of. We expect the same from your institution, and if you meet these conditions, you will have our support.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Mr President of the Commission, Commissioners, I rise to speak on the subject of the World Trade Organisation, on which there is a broad convergence of views between the Commission documents and the positions of the Socialist Group. This is not the case in other areas, as has already been pointed out. We share these views because we are in favour of world trade, but we want this trade to be conducted according to common standards, common rules which would regulate world trade with one aim in mind. This aim is that trade should benefit development, and particularly harmonious development in which the values of citizenship do not only apply to the world’s most dynamic and competitive regions. On the other hand, what does this statement tell us about principles? This regulation and these standards have brought an increased volume of trade for the World Trade Organisation, in other words, increased wealth, but when we look at how this wealth is distributed, we see, unfortunately, that the gulf between the world’s richest countries and blocks and the poorest and least developed countries continues to increase. It is therefore quite legitimate and even imperative that we ask ourselves, what purpose do the current common standards and rules serve? What good are the current way in which we negotiate and the way in which the World Trade Organisation works, if they cause trade to increase on the one hand, but on the other, they create problems and above all cause this gulf between rich and poor countries to grow? That is why we said that we were in favour of the strategy that the Commission outlined here for the Seattle negotiations and for later ones. We are certainly in favour of this strategic vision but we need to be brave and ambitious. We need to be demanding and ensure that social rights, environmental rights and consumer protection are incorporated into the forthcoming negotiations. Most importantly though, we must have a brave and ambitious long-term vision for reform, not just of the WTO but also of the ILO, the United Nations and above all, of the financial institutions, specifically the IMF and the World Bank. We must be brave and not only see some aspects of globalisation. We must be brave enough to have more of an overview of this process, so that wealth does not only benefit the most highly-developed blocks and countries, but that there is also harmonious change and development in every region in the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, 1999 already seems ages ago. That was the year that the agreements we know well – indeed, with which we are all too familiar – were reached in Tampere on the new European asylum and migration policy to be set up and a deadline was even attached to that, 5 years. Now we are in 2003, and not much has happened. I think that as far as that is concerned I am rather less enthusiastic about the outcomes of the Seville Summit, as will also be clear from our support for the position of our rapporteur Baroness Ludford. What I say is not entirely true, of course, because actually a lot has happened, only not in the dusty chambers of the Council. Since 1999, roughly 700 000 legal migrants a year have come to the European Union to work. And in those same four years around two million illegals have entered Europe. Of course that was not the intention, but you cannot say that Europe is full, even though the feeling has certainly arisen in some Member States that immigration is responsible for serious social tension and that the sharing of responsibilities between the Member States has not been at all fair. That is one of the reasons for adopting a European approach. In my country, the Netherlands, immigration for work has doubled since 1998 but against this stream of migrants we are dealing with a Europe that is getting older and older. In the Netherlands 20% of the population will be over 65 within 20 years, in Germany a similar figure has already been reached and what we call the ‘grey wave’ means that by 2050 there will be 80 pensioners for every 100 working people. At the moment there are 40 for every 100. It is not hard to imagine the effects this will have on the welfare state and pensions. It strikes me that the Council has been ignoring the long view. Recent years tell the story of how it has continued to look anxiously at how things are going and taken decisions on an ad hoc basis. We need to get real; now is the time to act. Immigration, of whatever kind, and the ageing of the population pay no attention to the passing of time; they just carry on unabated. There is no solution to be found in either a Fortress Europe or a rejuvenating elixir. My proposal to the Council is that we take a decision on European immigration policy during the Greek Presidency and stop pussyfooting around. Today Parliament voted on a directive on the entry and residence of citizens of third countries who want to enter the European Union to work. If you, the Council, really want to mean something to the citizens of Europe, vote for this directive. That would demonstrate foresight and with that initiative towards a sort of blue card we could start to regulate labour migration more effectively to the benefit of both groups, the migrants themselves and the countries that receive them. I ask the Council not to avoid that decision now and to remember that those who really want to get over that high fence into Europe come with all the social tensions associated with that and so it is sensible to create a gateway so that their entry is regulated.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the reality is that, after 2006, the least-favoured parts of the European Union will have increased, there will be more of them and they will have been enlarged for the worse. Please tell me which agreement or conclusion speaks of equity or redistribution. In the Brussels agreements and in the Franco-German pact which led to them, the only thing that can be deduced is that the cost of enlargement is not going to be paid by the largest or the most powerful countries. Copenhagen speaks exclusively of limitations. Enlargement is very good, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, but the numbers do not add up. It is unacceptable that most of the cost of enlargement is expected to be paid by those whose income is below the Community average. The financial framework decided in Berlin is clearly insufficient to deal with the costs of enlargement and the greater economic and social cohesion needs. Please give me a full answer, as is the Council’s responsibility, and tell me who is going to pay this bill between 2006 and 2013.

Political group: PSE
Owing to D66 [Dutch Democrats ‘66], the Oostlander report on drugs trafficking has been amended in such a way that its scope is now restricted to extensive, cross-border and organised drugs trafficking. The Dutch soft drugs policy is kept out of the firing line as a result. Despite this, D66 has abstained from the final vote on the report. The reason for this is that Amendments Nos 5 and 14 have been adopted by Parliament. These amendments require the Member States to plough the proceeds from the goods seized in the course of combating drugs back into rehabilitation programmes for drugs users. However benevolent this goal may be, it is fundamentally wrong in our view to make rehabilitation programmes financially dependent on the results of fighting crime. We therefore continue to prefer the way in which things are done in the Netherlands, where fines and proceeds from seizures are added to the general resources and where rehabilitation programmes are funded from the general resources. These amendments contravene the principle of subsidiarity. Despite the major improvements, we therefore had no choice but to refuse to back the report. - Jensen report (A5-0111-2002) Fatuzzo . – (IT) Mr President, I was in Bergamo, sitting in a café with some young university students. ‘I need a job,’ one of them said to me, ‘but I don’t know how to find work. It is very difficult. I would especially like to work in another State of the European Union.’ ‘Listen,’ I replied, ‘we are going to vote on a document by Mrs Anne Elisabet Jensen on Community incentive measures in the field of employment.’ I must congratulate Mrs Jensen – I voted for her report – on succeeding in increasing expenditure from EUR 50 million to EUR 55 million in conciliation to make it easier for young people to find work. I hope that, with a European Internet service, people looking for a job will be able to see immediately where there is work available anywhere in the European Union.

Political group: ELDR
The European Parliament took an important step towards greening European Union energy taxation today, by giving the green light to the directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity. I hope the Council’s reaction will now be equally constructive, and that there will not be a repeat of the veto which precluded any revision of this very same piece of legislation in 1997. One of the most important objectives of any sustainable development policy is to internalise environmental externalities into the economy. In other words, the price of goods must reflect their real environmental cost. The message sent by the price is essential in order to induce both producers and consumers to realign their choices towards sustainability. That situation is, unfortunately, still a long way off, which is why buying green is still a luxury and selling green is not yet sufficiently profitable. I welcome the rapporteur’s advocacy of more ambitious and binding rules, and in particular of lowering taxes on goods produced using renewable energy sources while raising taxes on fossil fuels for use in transport.

Political group: PPE-DE