GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Hernández Molar for the excellent work that he has done on this report and for the spirit of cooperation with which he has sought an all-party consensus behind his recommendations. I would like too to pay tribute to the work that the Commission has done in this area. We face a number of challenges in a world where the drive for emigration and the drive for immigration into Europe is still substantial. Clearly, we face a situation where there are push factors in countries of origin and pull factors in our own countries. It is important that we approach this debate with a very clear distinction between asylum and illegal immigration. It is important that we retain the commitment set out in the Geneva Convention and a humane approach. If I would pass one message to the governments of the Member States, it is that all too often they fall into the temptation to seek easy headlines by taking the populist approach to the so-called problems of asylum seekers and illegal immigration. Too rarely do they look to the principles to which they have signed up and try to deal with this problem seriously. This report sets out a number of proposals for action which are, in my view, to be welcomed. In particular it looks at immigration and at the inadequacy of current data. It looks at the problems of the action plans that have been drawn up which fail to strike the right balance between security and immigration. It looks at the policing of illegal immigration and calls for focus on combating trafficking and combating illegal employment. These are the things our Member States should be doing. And, of course, most importantly, it looks at budgets and the fact that under half of the measures proposed have budgetary allocations so that if we are to be serious about this, then an approach will be needed by the Council to give a legal base to the budgets which are being proposed. So in conclusion, Mr President, and on behalf of the , I welcome this report which we will vote on tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I shall be very brief. I wish to begin by addressing sincere thanks to the Commissioners. I want to ask two questions arising out of what has been said in Parliament during the debate. The first question concerns the demographic challenge, which will be one of the most important issues, and perhaps the most important of all, for the future of the EU. What initiatives are the Commissioners prepared to take to create a more family- and child-friendly policy, enabling family life and childcare to be combined with working life? My second question concerns what Commissioner Diamantopoulou mentioned regarding older workers. In the United States, it is unconstitutional to force older people to retire. Should the issue of the compulsory retirement of older people be looked into in the European Union too, and ought older people to be given the option of continuing in work voluntarily for longer than they are at present? Last of all, I just want to emphasise that it is important for the Stability and Growth Pact to be clear and not to concern itself with politics without there being clear criteria.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner Diamantopoulou, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Modrow for the pertinence of his report since the idea is clearly to subordinate everything to the fight against poverty. It must be said, however, that one of the two Commission Communications – the one entitled ‘reform of state-owned enterprises in developing countries with focus on public utilities: the need to assess all the options’ – made for more than thought-provoking, but at the same time welcome, reading for me. Indeed, we read that numerous liberalisations and privatisations that were carried out quickly in developing countries, under the pressure of structural adjustment plans that are often imposed, have had disastrous consequences in terms of job losses and the deterioration, and increase in price, of the services concerned. We would like the Commission to show similar clarity and objectivity when dealing with services of general interest within the European Union itself. As is called for in the draft report, an initial step in this direction would be for the Commission to finally agree to carry out a transparent, public and openly debated assessment of the effect of liberalisation on employment, on the quality and the extent of the services provided and on working conditions in Europe. This would be just as beneficial internally as it would be in terms of better understanding the state of affairs in the southern countries. As I say, our objective is clearly to combat poverty and ensure that this is not just all talk. When we look more closely at the various examples quoted in the Communication, we can see that among the positive experiences are cases in which State-owned enterprises have remained State-owned but in which mismanagement and corruption have been combated, the enterprise has gained renewed dynamism and effectiveness in its management and, above all, a regulatory and political framework has been implemented, which has clear objectives that are ambitious in terms of development, accessibility and quality of service and that are, in particular, financed by tariff adjustment. These different elements do not amount to a commercialisation of the State-owned enterprise according to the Commission’s definition but, instead, constitute, in my view, factors for good management of public utilities, which we also need to establish at European level, perhaps through a framework directive. A final point is that those in favour of the general liberalisation of utilities though the GATS claim that opening up public utilities in developing countries can only benefit them. A more pragmatic analysis should favour a different economic development strategy: one that is centred on the local economic and social actors and small- and micro-enterprises – with account being taken, in particular, of women and basic public utilities – and one that, above all, does not hand such enterprises over to the reckless appetites of the multinationals. Excuse me at this point, however, for I think we are talking about ethics.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the key question is whether or not the arms embargo decided by the Council in September of this year as part of the restrictive measures against Indonesia should be extended beyond January next year. I think, having weighed up the pros and cons, that the right decision is to maintain the embargo. This allows us to send out two different signals. First, we want to bolster the development of democracy in Indonesia. It has, without doubt, maintained momentum with the democratic change of power in Indonesia and we want to and we must encourage the democratic forces in Indonesia. We must also recognise that the role of the army continues to be highly problematic, to put it mildly. There have been atrocities not only in East Timor, which is now to gain independence, but also in Aceh and other parts of Indonesia. What we have to do is make it clear to the army that it is now being closely watched by the public worldwide, especially in the EU, and that we take the liberty of drawing our conclusions from the behaviour of the military. At the moment, these conclusions must be that we are not prepared to supply this military with any more weapons, irrespective of whether or not the fear that they will now obtain these weapons from China is justified. We, in all events, should not render ourselves guilty of this arms supply. I therefore advocate, after careful consideration, that we vote to maintain this embargo, because it is a signal to the army in Indonesia and we hope that it is also a signal to the democratic forces in Indonesia which, we may assume, will be encouraged by our stance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, instead of looking backwards I would like to look forwards. Commissioner Lamy, in our meeting this morning, I asked you what the status of your Seattle mandate was. You replied that, as yet, you were not sure. I would like to make the case as strongly as possible that the mandate given to you in 1999, even before the Seattle Ministerial – let alone the Doha and Cancún Ministerials – must now be null and void. We cannot pretend, now that two out of three ministerials have collapsed, that we are dealing with business as usual. In particular it seems that the EU must now accept the verdict of developing countries that they do not want negotiations on the Singapore issues. Therefore we must drop not just two, but all four of those issues. At the same time we need to go further in eliminating export subsidies and much further in responding to ACP and LDC concerns in particular. The statement by Botswana on behalf of those groups said very clearly that the revised texts fell far short of their expectations. We can debate the causes of the collapse at Cancún. I suspect my own analysis will be rather different from many we have heard so far this afternoon, but what is clear is that collapse offers us an opportunity to start a root-and-branch transformation of the WTO. What we need now is a full review, not just of the working procedures of the WTO, which you have rightly called medieval, but of its trade rules themselves, which I would call imperialist. In many ways the rules of the WTO are not neutral ones that can be used defensively to protect the interests of the weakest players. The rules are too often institutionalising the current system of global inequality. Take the overriding principle, for example, of national treatment that effectively denies poorer countries the right to promote their own national industries and economies, a right that was indispensable to most richer countries and which they used with impunity in their own development processes. It is clear that we need fair, multilaterally agreed rules to oversee and regulate trade in the interests of poverty eradication. But whether the current WTO can actually deliver those outcomes is frankly much harder to believe. If we are to rebuild confidence in the multilateral system, we have to expend much more political capital in making its rules and procedures genuinely fair and sustainable. Can you tell me if you are prepared to do that?

Political group: Verts-ALE
The report makes a number of good points. However, they pale before the sheer extent of the misery and shame suffered by millions of people throughout the world, especially in undeveloped countries, where they are still living in poverty, deprived of even basic access to health, and dying from infectious diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS and so on. It is even more of a disgrace when there is the certain prospect – based on official studies and research – that the situation will get worse. The acceptance that health is a 'global public good', as the report rightly points out, cannot be reconciled with the fact that a large proportion of the world's population is deprived of access to education, housing, employment, food, safe drinking water, conditions of hygiene and health services. More than 5 million people a year die from infectious diseases, mainly in underdeveloped countries, while a handful of multinational pharmaceutical monopolies continue to patent, profit from and speculate with drugs, even going so far as to withdraw drugs which, although they save lives, fall short of profit targets. It is not right to channel any additional resources for developing research to the private sector in the form of incentives rather than to public research centres. It is insulting and hypocritical to state that the 'global public good' of health is being hit particularly hard in underdeveloped countries, while at the same time imposing structural changes on these countries by reducing expenditure on the public service sector, especially the health and education sectors. It is unacceptable to rely on the 'charity' of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for action to safeguard this 'global good' and to trust in 'better cooperation' and 'partnership' between the public sector, NGOs and the private sector. Health is a fundamental and inalienable human right, it is the most important factor of social justice and human dignity and it cannot be ruled by market regulations and the laws of profit. It is of prime and capital importance to use public-sector means to fight disease and secure the right to health. However, a radical approach to the problem involves hitting at the root of poverty, at what sustains and exacerbates it. The report hardly even touches on this sort of solution to the problem, making do with regurgitating constantly repeated 'analgesic' announcements and proposals. Overturning the social policy system and policies which apply the established imperialist and monopoly interests which generate and spread poverty and misery, which have no hesitation in crushing and sacrificing entire populations and nations to their cause, is the only solution to the problem. (The sitting was suspended at 1.05 p.m. and was resumed at 3.00 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have abstained from voting on Mr Skinner’s report concerning minimum safety and health requirements for workers’ use of work equipment at work. This is an area in which the EU ought not to have so much influence. We are basically well disposed towards the European Union. As Swedish Liberals, we view European integration as an opportunity for finding solutions to cross-border problems concerning the environment, trade, movement across borders, human rights and conflict management. On these issues, the European Union gives Europe’s democracies a chance to show the world that cooperation leads to peace and increased prosperity. We also believe in the principle of subsidiarity, according to which decisions are to be made as close as possible to the people they affect. That is why we are actively pushing the issue of a constitution for the European Union, through which the distribution of responsibilities would be clear to everyone. It must be made perfectly clear to all citizens that the EU should stick to the issues it knows best, namely cross-border issues. All other questions ought to be dealt with at local, regional or national levels. We are convinced that it is not at EU level that legislation on, for example, how ladders are to be used in jobs above ground- or floor-level is best enacted. How scaffolding is to be erected and jobs carried out must be decided in the light of national conditions. For us, it is important that the EU should instead concentrate on a small number of areas in which it can really be of use. This is not one such area.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I disagree with Mr Markov. Iran is a complex society. There is evidence of some progress towards an Islamic society that is in tune with the modern world. President Khatami and his reformist allies are a symbol of that modernisation. However, President Khatami is being constantly frustrated by the more fundamentalist elements of Iranian society. That is why the EU is currently engaged in negotiating a trade and cooperation agreement with Iran. This is not currently in doubt, though it must be clear to the Iranian authorities that at the same time we will expect and require an agreement on human rights. The death sentence on Dr Hashem Aghajari for apostasy on the basis of some obscure theological dispute is incomprehensible to the West. We welcome President Khatami's intervention, the action of lecturers and students in protesting and Dr Aghajari's own appeal for calm. We welcome the threat of resignation by President Khatami, the cabinet and dozens of MPs, should the Council of Guardians veto legislation that is being proposed to limit its current absolute power. However, we have to make it clear to the government of Iran that we will be watching the outcome of this and similar cases with close interest, in terms of our future relations with that country.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the report's estimated 28% pay differential between men and women is particularly revolting because in many cases even men are not paid nearly enough to make a decent living in the twenty-first century. But it is not enough simply to make this statement; if Parliament really wanted to put an end to this injustice it would take binding measures and force all employers without exception to respect the principle of equal treatment for men and women on pain of heavy penalties. There are areas in which Parliament is able to adopt binding measures. But judging by the woolly proposals in the report, there is no question of adopting coercive measures towards employers. Under these circumstances, even if the European Parliament votes in favour this will be a complete waste of time. It will be up to working women to impose equality themselves, joining forces with the workers to demand a living wage for all.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the attacks on New York and Washington were a new form of terrorism on a new scale, amounting to an act of war. The intention of the coalition, led by the United States, to eradicate terrorism deserves the support of the European democracies in particular. We welcome the measures taken by the European Council since the attacks and we are playing our part in putting them swiftly into effect. However, let us also be vigilant in ensuring that the European Union does not, in its haste, take steps which exceed the current needs. In some cases, these measures should be renewable and temporary. Last week in Rome I and my colleagues had a series of meetings in connection with the reaction to terrorism. We met the exiled Afghan King, Mohammed Zahir Shah, who ruled for 40 years until 1973 and who in 1964 introduced free elections and a free media and brought women into politics. We affirm our support for the central role he is willing to play in the return to democracy of his country. We urge the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take up immediate contacts with the king. We also had meetings with Italian ministers and were able to express our thanks for the additional deployment of troops in the Balkans, allowing British special forces to be deployed in another theatre. We also discussed at the Vatican the values shared by all faiths, including Islam, concerning the integrity of human beings, their rights and the universal belief in the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether in the context of democracy or other systems. We held meetings with the World Food Programme and were told that the international community should start to plan now for a reconstruction agency similar to the one the European Union set up for Kosovo. Even before the current crisis, drought, a failing economy and war had turned Afghanistan into one of the most difficult places to live on earth, with as many as 22% of children in some districts dead before they had reached five years of age and an average life expectancy of 40. The actions about to begin are designed not simply to eradicate terrorism, but also to eradicate an evil regime.

Political group: PPE-DE
People outlive their productive lives by quite a margin, at least if their health care, housing, food, working conditions and social security are adequate. Now that working is threatening to turn into a kind of elite sport, people end up being burnt-out at a younger age, and the need for a lower pensionable age is growing. In addition, due to small families, younger generations are outnumbered by the older generations, as a result of which, fewer people will be working per pensioner in future. The wrong answer to that has come from most governments and businesses over the last few decades. They wanted to reduce the number of people entitled to pensions, by, inter alia, abolishing widows’ pensions, and by starting the old-age pension at an older age. In this way, it was hoped that taxes and pension premiums would drop. It has now become clear that skimping on pension rights only leads to poverty in the long run. The only way to stave off that poverty then is to suddenly raise government spending sharply. The real answer is to start saving in good time for a general pension right for everyone at the age of 60, and to improve pensions caused by inability to work at a younger age. This report still leaves something to be desired but is moving in the right direction.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Piecyk, on his rapid and wonderful work and I would like to point out that I have just received a report from Friends of the Earth which makes a comparative study which I consider to be of interest. The distance from the port of Pasajes, in the Basque Country, to Vlissingen, in Holland, is approximately the same whether one travels by sea, road or rail. A cargo of cars and caravans can easily be transported on a small ship of two thousand tonnes, instead of the 204 lorries or 7 trains with 102 wagons which would be required to transport the same load. The results of the three systems, with regard to total external costs, in terms of road congestion, accidents, noise, atmospheric pollution and climate change, vary considerably: EUR 74 000 for the ship, EUR 130 000 for the lorries and EUR 99 000 for the railway. I believe we should draw the conclusion that sea transport is the most appropriate solution and it should receive public resources as a priority. I also agree that we should select the most important ports – as Mr Piecyk points out – as well as those which conform to intermodality and, above all, the ports which allow us to make the greatest savings in terms of environmental costs. With regard to the other conclusions of the report, I agree with Mr Piecyk that the Council’s position is more restrictive. Some will consider it to be broader, but I believe that it is more restrictive in relation to the effective use of European funds intended for that purpose.

Political group: Verts-ALE