GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, water is a precious natural asset, a vital necessity, and it is our duty to protect it. I think it essential to have a framework directive on water policy in the European Union, which will be the basic legal instrument for improving the quality and proper management of water resources, and I congratulate the rapporteur on her attempt to address this thorny issue and take due account of all the points of view. I must say, however, that, there are discrepancies between the countries in the north and south concerning water, and that is why the matter cannot be dealt with in the same way. There are parts of Europe with an inherent shortage of water, and that should be taken into account by this directive. In recent years, climate change has compelled Mediterranean countries to face serious problems of flooding or lack of rain. We agree with the common position but we also accept several of the amendments tabled, whose aim is to improve it. However, we cannot accept amendments such as those that refer to the issue of costing water, granted that in my country a high proportion of the users are farmers. In addition, amendments which ban the transfer of water from one hydrological basin to another would condemn many areas in my country to water shortage. The issue of eliminating hazardous substances ought, I think, to be made more realistic so that we can achieve it. As for the time scale demanded for the directive’s implementation, it must be borne in mind that there are countries where creating the infrastructure for this directive’s implementation will take time and considerable resources. In spite of these remarks however, I believe our common objective of sustainable use of water resources can be maintained.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for reminding us of Cancun’s common theme – the integration of the developing countries. Thank you, too, for matching words with deeds in one or other area where the WTO ought to act differently. If we want to show solidarity with the South and with the most fragile populations of our own area, we cannot treat health, education, water, energy or the necessary progress in sanitation systems as mere commodities. People in all countries must have the benefit of reasonable prices for what are really public services to humanity. The negotiations on GATS need to change course. The right to healthy food in sufficient quantity is also a common good of humanity. Farmers of the North and the South must be able to support a perspective of true multifunctionality. Rural development, the very symbol of the non-market sector, and which will be as crucial an issue tomorrow as it is today, is in fact part of the reorientation of the CAP as just adopted by the Council. It reinforces the adjustments that are a positive signal for our small farmers and for those of the countries of the South. But if you can rely on the start of the decoupling affecting cereals products or meat, then export subsidies must be less obvious and must continue to be less obvious. The distinctive nature of European farmers must be protected. But if solidarity with the small farmers of the South is to be clear, they must be allowed to benefit from support systems similar to the CAP, which still protects European farmers. The prime task of both of them is to feed their fellow citizens by freely producing the appropriate food. They must be helped to do so in the face of the two or three agro-industrial monopolies.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, adoption of the 2000/2001 agricultural price package involves a commitment to save EUR 300 million from the agriculture budget and to use the appropriations released for reconstruction work in Kosovo. In this context the report rightly points out that the Commission ought to submit a general document on this to Parliament, in the form of a concrete plan, before further austerity proposals can be accepted. Without a doubt, the issue of funding the whole reform package plays a decisive role. What I do not find satisfactory in this process, however, is the fact that we always speak first of reducing expenditure and revenue while at the same time transferring ever more tasks to the Commission, which, of course, does not reduce costs either. Up until 2006 the Commission should work on the basis of the realistic targets set and should deduce its financial needs from them. As a result of Agenda 2000, European farmers had to accept a EUR 5 billion reduction in their income. This meant that the agriculture budget was fixed at EUR 50.5 billion and it should stay as such. To achieve its objectives, the Commission should, in my view, be invited to present a report showing how costs have changed in the agricultural sector. Today, more deals are concluded in a second than used to be in an entire day and change is the only constant. Agricultural prices change particularly quickly. In the EU in 1999, the prices of crop products fell by 4% and livestock products by 6%. As a result of excessive over-production, pig prices fell by 9%. All the important agricultural products such as milk, beef, cereals and pork are suffering from increased turbulence on the world’s foreign exchanges, reducing farmers’ incomes still further. That is why we are still far from answering the question of how European Union farmers should make a living in the future. In the saturated marketplace, only products produced economically can be sold. The price reductions will destroy farmers’ livelihoods in Europe and thus temporarily ease the pressure on the market. Following this structural change the agricultural holdings which have been able to survive will further increase their output and wield even greater power on the world market. Another price war will lead to a new round of market redistribution. Further developments will show whether the reform of the EU’s agricultural policy by means of Agenda 2000 is capable of achieving its overall aims or not.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is not because my country has not qualified for the World Cup, but along with my fellow MEPs from other groups and from our group, I think we should seize the euphoria surrounding the World Cup in Korea and Japan to consider the perpetual losers: the children aged six, ten or twelve, who stitch together footballs in India, Pakistan and other countries. Three reports were presented at the press conference of Global March Against Child Labour in New Delhi last month. They furnish the proof that child labour is still the order of the day in the production of sports equipment. For example, according to a report from the Dutch National India Working Group, the number of children working in the Indian production of sports equipment full-time has hardly fallen over the past four years. This despite an inspection scheme introduced by FIFA. Other reports of a similar kind denounce the situation in Pakistan and China. Admittedly, FIFA demonstrated its good will in 1996 by concluding an agreement with the international trade union on the code of conduct to banish child labour and poor working conditions. However, this code has not been implemented to date, and the reports I mentioned earlier show that we are still a long way off the set goal. Hence the express appeal to FIFA to speed up the implementation of this code. We all know that child labour is a complex matter. Our campaign should not only be confined to calling FIFA and the manufacturers to task over this in an overbearing manner. The production of sports equipment is certainly not the only, and not even the most important, sector in which children work. In order to tackle the problem at the roots, cooperation is required between industry, civil society, as well as the governments and international organisations involved. After all, we need to look for alternatives where labour, education, income and education are concerned. The countries involved must be reminded of their duty to monitor existing rules effectively. I should like to underline that this resolution should not be considered as a targeted attack on one specific form of child abuse, or aimed at one specific sector in industry and one product. However, the World Cup is an illustration of the extreme contrasts in our world. Between the fit and healthy children who copy the World Cup on the streets in the richer world and the children on the Indian Subcontinent who stitch together leather footballs in sweatshops all day long. In this way, the World Cup 2002 forms a starting point to remind everyone – manufacturers, governments, international organisation and the public – of their own responsibilities. This is why I warmly support this urgent procedure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, consensus was achieved at the Feira Summit a couple of weeks ago on the idea that flexibility should be on the IGC agenda. At the meeting, however, no further details were given as to how flexibility can apply also to the second pillar, that is to say, to a common foreign and security policy. I would like to ask when the country holding the presidency of the Council will present its own point of view regarding how the flexibility clause can be implemented with respect to the second pillar. If and when that happens, will those Member States not in NATO be automatically excluded from those decisions, taken on the basis of flexibility, which lead to some Member States proceeding more swiftly along the path to a common defence? I refer in particular to the statement made last week by Alain Richard, Minister for Defence of the country holding the presidency, in which he expressed his concern in the event that non-aligned countries are fully involved from the start in second pillar development projects.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the High Representative started his speech this evening by saying that we must tackle this crisis from a European perspective. All credit is due to him, but we must also acknowledge the work of the Greek Presidency, which played this card determinedly and, thus far, has obtained hitherto unhoped-for results, especially as regards the agenda and the time frames. In this connection, I would remind you that Korea, the Middle East and Macedonia were discussed as well as Iraq, for they are all part of a very complex international situation. I believe that Parliament will have no difficulty in supporting you, Mr Solana, on the four points you cited as European strategy. I would make it clear that, as regards the role of the United Nations, we – the Group of the European Socialists, in particular – want there to be neither excessive rigidity in the implementation of Resolution 1441 nor, should there prove to be a discrepancy between statements and reality, an automatic declaration of war. However, to lend credibility to the desire – which you have rightly described as the desire of the majority of the European citizens – to both avoid war and be without dictators, I believe that Europe must have more confidence in itself and be more coherent and, above all, more united. More coherent in the sense of believing more strongly in its values and showing some pride in them and more united in the sense of adopting a better thought out, consistent position. In this regard, I would like to end with a question. Are this document, adopted on 27 January by the Foreign Affairs Ministers, and the coordination of the European Members of the Security Council an indication that the opposing Franco-German and Anglo-Spanish positions will be resolved? Then, what will Italy – the subject of such eulogies from Mr Tajani – do when it has the Presidency? How much continuity can there be between the Greek and Italian Presidencies, given that our Prime Minister oscillates continuously between support for President Bush and what then appears to be a preference for the European position? IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the plan of action on drug control has been discussed within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I would like to establish here once more that the plan of action met with a great deal of appreciation in our Committee. The prevention of drug abuse is necessary and it is essential to bring down the demand for drugs. Many within the Committee on Industry are also of the opinion that the fight against addiction cannot be undertaken without respect for the drug user but the Committee on Industry deemed it not to be its task to go into this aspect in any depth. Hence, the opinion focuses on the Committee on Industry’s key topics, namely trade and research. As far as external trade is concerned, the Committee on Industry is aware that the trade policy can only do so much in the fight against drugs. Driving back poverty in the producing countries is an important part of the fight against drugs. Trade instruments should therefore be deployed, in addition to other aid programmes. The Committee on Industry is also aware, of course, that the drugs topic within the Union and within this Parliament is a controversial one. There is not really a European approach. There are different approaches of Member States and there is a multilateral strategy within the UN context. It is because of this controversy that the Committee on Industry is of the opinion that headway can be made by means of independent research. Research can indicate which strategy and programmes proved successful and which did not. Based on these facts, maybe we can bridge our differences. One of the points of difference concerns the approach adopted at UN level. This approach is viewed by many as too repressive. Others, on the other hand, are of the opinion that this fight cannot be fought hard enough. The fight against drugs equals war. The Committee on Industry concludes that the general principles of the UN approach are undisputed, but all the more so the policy. This is why the Committee on Industry is urging a thorough evaluation of the multilateral policy and the treaties based thereon. It is regrettable that this conclusion is not included is Mrs Giannakou’s report. Finally, the Committee on Industry would like to express its appreciation to the Lisbon Observatory. Thanks to the findings of the observatory, we may well be able to look beyond our national preferences. The Committee on Industry hopes that the Observatory can remain a base for further development of a European approach to the drugs problem.

Political group: PSE
I have abstained from voting because the resolution that has been tabled is not as decisive as it could be with regard to the US position on the practice of preventive attacks. I wish to emphasise the solidarity that we must show towards the Iraqi people and to the relatives of the young American and British soldiers who have died in this unjust war. - Van Brempt report (A5-0061/2003)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is always difficult to give an explanation of vote in these conditions. In relation to the Savary report, we do not think that the European Parliament has made the right choice, even though Mr Savary’s report was extremely interesting. We, the , believe that the votes delivered by Parliament today alter the very spirit of the proposal for a directive on which the Savary report is based. The are in favour of harmonising transport, but on the condition that this harmonisation improves the situation in Europe, which is what our fellow citizens are demanding. This sort of harmonisation requires more social measures and greater consideration to be given to the environment. And of course, we, the , believe that harmonisation will only be worthwhile if we also have a genuine transport policy with, I stress, an intermodal transport system, which integrates environmental costs into infrastructure costs, a social regime for road workers, as well as harmonisation for road hauliers. The also believe that the free movement of goods is not currently under threat, because, ladies and gentlemen, if we cannot drive on roads and motorways at the weekends, we can still travel by rail, which is open all weekend, and we can still travel by sea, and by waterways. Of course, we, the , have placed our hopes in this harmonisation and this draft directive, particularly with Amendment No 13, which fulfilled citizens’ expectations, particularly as far as greater road safety is concerned, taking greater account of the quality of life; this harmonisation also Member States with the option of introducing additional restrictions, which is still in line with what we hope to give to our policy in this area. Lastly, as far as the amendment on flowers is concerned, again, we, the Group of the , believe that it is absolutely scandalous that this amendment has been passed, because, ultimately, it is one of a long list of Trojan horses. We believe that, once we agree to an exemption for flowers, other exemptions will inevitably follow. Finally, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out to you that all our transport policies stipulate that we must reduce road transport. We have missed the opportunity to do this today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the document on the difficulties faced by the forestry sector following the storms in December 1999 only refers to the damage caused to the wooded areas in order to better illustrate the price drops in the timber sector and the implications for foresters and timber exporters. The resolutions deal mainly with the regulation of the timber market and export subsidies. For my part, I would like to speak up on behalf of forestry workers, who receive no mention at all, even though it is their efforts which are keeping the timber sector going. The storms were more than just an environmental disaster for all of us and an economic problem for the profiteers of the timber sector. They have resulted in a sharp deterioration in the working conditions of foresters and lumberjacks, whose jobs are extremely dangerous at the best of times with the very highest accident rate which will continue to rise. The discomfort and danger involved in their profession is illustrated by the fact that there were over 100 casualties in the 1990 storms in Germany. The forestry workers’ salary is shamefully low – a mere 6900 francs. They are calling for a decent salary which offsets the risks involved in their job. They are demanding to be able to retire at 55 and calling for an improvement in their working conditions, which are still antiquated and result in the physical deterioration and sometimes death of a number of workers each year. We support these legitimate claims.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the INTERREG programme is particularly close to our hearts. Like many of my colleagues, I am pleased that the European Parliament was able to safeguard this initiative. As I live in the Sarre-Lor-Lux Sud region of Belgium, I am well aware that the regions are where Europe is being created. They are where we live the European experience on a daily basis and where the people make European construction come alive. These projects must therefore be properly taken into account and must integrate sustainable development. Why am I stressing this point? The answer is quite simply because the projects currently being submitted are still too often damaging to the environment due to the way they are submitted. For example, to accept new roads is to accept new pollution within the European Union. This goes totally against the policies which we are proposing to fight greenhouse gas emissions, for example. I would also ask the Commission to ensure that the environmental pillar of the EU’s policy is integrated into the projects submitted and that the goal of reducing CO2 for example forms an experimental added value in the projects proposed. I am particularly thinking in this respect of certain infrastructures which are under construction. We know that some Member States are still wavering, for example, between rail and road for routes through vulnerable areas such as the Pyrenees, as in the Aspe valley. However, I am also thinking of my own region where my government is still debating whether to route the railway or to build a second motorway, the A32. In this respect too, I would ask the Commission to be particularly attentive about ensuring that there is real cohesion between the various policies, specifically in the INTERREG programmes which are being submitted.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I wonder, if the Commissioner would agree that education is vital in terms of tackling violence against women? I would ask him if he is aware of the project pioneered by the City of Edinburgh district council which is entitled ‘zero tolerance on violence against women’. This has been taken up by many local authorities. The campaign emphasises that violence, whether it be for social, cultural or economic reasons, is unacceptable and should be treated as such by local authorities, social workers and the police. Would he look at this programme and consider disseminating it throughout the Member States as an example of best practice in tackling this very difficult, but nevertheless, important area?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, thank you for your reply. The problem is precisely this: nothing has been said as to what will happen if Turkey does not comply with its obligation to compensate Mrs Loizidou. However, the question which was put to you – to you in the Council – is this: what political response do you, as the Council, intend to make to this conduct since Turkey has stated on numerous occasions that it does not intend to comply? As we are now entering into new relations with Turkey, perhaps the question of respect for the decisions of the Court could be raised – and I think that it should be raised – within the framework of these relations?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we are going to vote on a report today that has caused a political stir in certain EU States. The Commission and Commissioner Vitorino have done some sterling work here, and I would like, on behalf of my group, to take the opportunity to thank them for it. The European Council confirmed, at its special summit in Tampere, that the European Union must ensure that third-country nationals are treated fairly. The Commission has taken this resolution forward. This directive is conclusive as it stands, and should be transposed with all haste. Sadly there were, and still are, reservations against including refugees benefiting from temporary protection in this directive, and against recognising same-sex relationships as the basis for family reunification. This debate demonstrates once again that, unfortunately, integration and migration policy is still a controversial issue in the European Union. There is, after all, a great deal to be considered. Nevertheless, we must make it possible for people who live apart from relatives who are third-country nationals, to be brought together. Therefore, in principle, this is an initiative that deserves everyone’s support, particularly where it concerns children, and these self-same children – irrespective of whether they are the offspring of refugees or immigrants – should have a future in the European Union. However, opinion is being stirred up against this directive in the political arena. It is to be hoped that the majority of honourable members will support the directive put forward by the Commission as it stands. I know that my fellow members are awaiting a statement from Mr Vitorino, in the hope that refugees’ interests will be sacrificed for the sake of this directive, under pressure from quite a number of EU Ministers for Home Affairs. I regret this decision, and the fact that Ministers for Home Affairs appear to carry more weight in this Parliament than the honourable members, who are expected to act according to their consciences. For this reason, I reiterate my call for us to support the Commission’s directive and at last set down a marker for an up-to-date, modern and humane policy of integration. I hope the s will refrain from making this deal with the Conservatives.

Political group: Verts-ALE