GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, the framework directive which we are considering today at second reading is a kind of constitutional charter for water which will apply across the European Union. This directive represents both a point of arrival and a point of departure. It is a point of arrival because it was developed from a range of directives which were fragmentary and diffuse, and applies a unified logic and systematic consistency to water legislation. It is also a point of departure because a new framework of reference has been created, into which future European legislation on water will converge and flow. The framework directive seeks to be, and rightly so, both ambitious and realistic, both strong-minded and carefully thought out, and it has, to a large extent, succeeded. Thanks to Mrs Lienemann’s excellent work, the amendments proposed by the Commission will go some way towards strengthening the directive’s text and making it more rigorous. Making it more rigorous does not mean making it more rigid, by ignoring the stark differences in climate and geography across Europe. The rapporteur’s proposal is one which, on the whole, I would wish to support but I would like to express some praise for it and then two concerns. I would first of all like to praise it because the directive’s demand for the integrated management of water basins is undeniably a step forward. This also applies to the demand that water only be transferred between basins when this is shown to be absolutely necessary. This is a principle that will prove beneficial and instructive for the Iberian Peninsula for example. My first concern is about the timetable laid down in the directive: it may prove to be a straitjacket although I think that it also represents a powerful challenge. My second concern is easy to guess: it turns on the difficulties in establishing water charges and in setting prices, particularly when taking environmental costs into account. This is something that causes anxiety, particularly among farmers. Paying a fair price for water may also result in injustices. This framework directive banks on a considerable gamble: that in 2020 European waters will have returned to their natural state, free of pollution and dangerous substances. Is this a Utopian ideal? Is this a return to pre-industrial society? I think not. I give this framework directive my vote of confidence and of optimism. The recent catastrophe on the Danube has illustrated, as in a nightmare, that a long-term policy and strategy for the ecological protection of our water, however much it may cost, is not a luxury of the rich but a necessity for civilisation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Portuguese newspapers have recently reported appalling cases of mistreatment, abuse and even slavery, to which Portuguese workers have been subjected in various EU countries, such as France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias this morning ran a story entitled ‘More Portuguese citizens ill-treated in the Netherlands’, which stated that the Dutch authorities had been informed of the situation. According to the story, however, the reports from that country are marked by unprecedented abuse perpetrated against Portuguese workers. There are accounts of mistreatment of workers in some companies in the Netherlands, or at the hands of gangmasters; workers are denied the most basic of rights, such as sufficient food to eat and accommodation fit for human habitation; real organised networks are said to be operating in various countries to recruit workers, which is absolutely scandalous. Immediate action must be taken, Mr President, to put an end to this state of affairs. I request, Mr President, that the Commission and the Council be notified and that immediate action be taken to eradicate the problem of these appalling attacks on workers’ rights and on human rights in general.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your statement. I have three short questions, the first being as follows. We have been awaiting a common communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle for a very long time now and it was anything but clear in the past as to whether the Commission speaks with one voice. Does the document you have presented here today also accord with the opinion of your colleagues the Commissioners for Industry, Foreign Trade, Competition and the Internal Market? I am sure that your answer to this will be “yes” but I would be grateful if you could tell me if these gentlemen are also aware as to what the consequences of this will be? My next question, Mrs Wallström, is when will you begin to apply this principle to legislation; to legislation pertaining to chemicals or other sectors, for example? Lastly, will we be able to recognise when this principle has been applied in legislation? In other words, will each proposal contain an additional sheet stating that checks have been made as to the application of the precautionary principle and the following conclusion has been reached?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, it is a rare sitting in which maritime safety is not raised. This one is no exception, but has produced a consensus. Indeed, we are, I believe, largely in agreement with our fellow MEP’s report. Two or three words on two or three subjects. Firstly, places of refuge. I think, Commissioner, that, once the work is complete, it will be good to have a European register of places and ports of refuge and of refuge procedures so that people might be aware of these and have full access to the details. A few words, now, about the agency itself. It is located in Lisbon. I wish it good luck in the port of Lisbon, but it must not be forgotten that it must also be equipped with regional technical agencies and that we must proceed quickly. We must act in such a way that the operational side of the agency, its range of tools in effect, is put in place as quickly as possible. Regional technical agencies are planned, I believe, on the Atlantic coast, in the Mediterranean, on the Baltic and on the Adriatic. Finally, I read yesterday, in the Commission report on the financial perspectives for 2007-2012, that you were proposing a European border protection agency with a European Corps of Border Guards. I think that, in this context, we must also turn our attention to maritime borders. What you proposed concerning land borders is worth examining with a view to its being applied to the maritime sphere, not in an identical, but in an adapted, form. To conclude, Commissioner, I think that the work is far from being finished. There is one area in which it would be as well to maintain our efforts: that of flags of convenience because, in my view, as long as it is possible, through a lawyer covering for an anonymous and ultra-rich owner, to register a ship in Panama for USD 1 500, and to do so with complete discretion, threats will continue to hang over sailors and the environment.

Political group: PSE
I have voted against paragraph four, which was adopted by 277 votes in favour, with 129 votes against and 47 abstentions. The paragraph supports the development of a European Corps of Border Guards, made up of special units, which would be financed by the Community. If necessary, and at the request of the Member States, it would temporarily help the national authorities secure certain at-risk sections of the external borders, without, however, usurping Member States’ competences. I do not believe that the EU should set up a further military authority, but that, in the future too, responsibility should lie with the respective Member States. Better coordination between the Member States, together with the acceptance of greater responsibility on the part of their governments, may be a better method.

Political group: PPE-DE
These days, people are mainly seen as consumers. They have to try to accumulate as much money as possible by working long and hard, or through speculation. Anyone who fails to become rich fast, often at the expense of their fellow citizens, is considered a failure. The winners, on the other hand, are continually invited to hand over all their savings as quickly as possible to estate agents, those offering expensive holidays, and casinos. And also to schemes which will make them independent of the normal education, health care and public transport services, for these have been whittled down to a level that is now only acceptable to the losers. No wonder that the successful consumer is inundated with advertising, including from abroad. In this proposal, it is assumed that sales promotions, such as discounts, gifts and games, are conducive to welfare. In 2000, they accounted for a million jobs in nine Member States and investments to the tune of over EUR 40 billion. Although even the liberal-minded rapporteur, Mr Beysen, has to admit that such sales promotion adversely affects the ability to publish books, the fair distribution of medicines and encourages young people’s addiction to alcohol and gaming machines, he does not focus his proposal on consumer protection but on the suspension of rules and fewer obligations for those who run companies. That is why I will be voting against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office, thank you for your reply. However, I would like to add my voice to the concern expressed here that there is not too much time left before the Gothenburg Summit, in terms of preparation to integrate environmental issues into various policies, something which came out of the conclusions of the Helsinki Summit. In fact, I am very worried about how this process is to move forward. Some who have spoken of sustainable development think the aim is somehow to make the environment a relative issue, the economy appearing to take priority over the environment. I would like you, Mr President-in-Office, to explain your purpose regarding this matter. At present, the sixth environmental action programme is being drafted in Parliament and this should be the ecological pillar of this programme of sustainable development. Are you going to demand that this will in fact be the case, or is this ecological aspect just talk?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like the words 'and sustainable combustion' added. (Parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) We shall interrupt the vote at this point and continue after the formal sitting at 12.30 p.m.

Political group: PPE-DE
Equal opportunities, addressed in Article 23 of the Charter, are a fundamental right and a value that we hold dear. Since 1975, the date of the first directive on equal pay and treatment, progress has certainly been made, but a great deal remains to be done. Statistics broken down by gender and the gender dimension that is included in all our policies are essential prerequisites. Practical actions to ensure that parents, both men and women, can benefit from infrastructures such as nurseries, for example, which enable them to reconcile family life and working life, would constitute a considerable step forwards. Our actions must increase the population’s awareness of changes in mentality so that finally more women gain access to positions of responsibility and to supposedly typically ‘masculine’ careers. This also requires a common effort to be made with the social partners to ensure that this fundamental principle is applied in every company and in all collective bargaining. Equal pay is only one issue within equality between men and women; let us not forget domestic violence, sexual exploitation, etc. Europe has a duty to set an example. I thank Mrs Kratsa for having pursued this approach.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the previous CITES conference, the European Parliament almost unanimously adopted a resolution to accord the African elephant the highest status of protection. The African elephant is still a threatened animal species, according to the IUCN. Fourteen EU Ministers faint-heartedly abstained from the vote and, as a result, legalised the shooting of elephants in Africa. The Dutch Minister was the only one to vote for the conservation of the elephant. Between 10 and 20 April next, the fate of this elephant will once again feature on the agenda of the world community. Kenya, the hosting nation, and India have tabled the proposal to grant the African elephant full protection once again. Shooting elephants in order to sell their tusks to Japan and then giving the proceeds away – at least on paper – to protect wild animals is a perverse kind of logic. Besides which, it does not work. South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zambia want to shoot even more elephants now. This blood money also ends up in the wrong hands. I would call on the 15 Environment Ministers, including the 6 Green Ministers, to show courage and to grant the African elephant full protection once again on 30 March during the Environmental Council. Full protection is also needed for the hawksbill turtle which is only to be found in Cuba. In the space of three generations, more than 80% of the population has disappeared. Regarding the African elephant and the hawksbill turtle, the European Commission gives priority to the blood trade with Japan. This is scandalous.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by pointing out that establishing common standards on the question of family reunification is for us an important element in a real common immigration policy. This is an outcome of the Tampere European Council deliberations and was recently confirmed at Laeken. It is, however, a very sensitive subject in which it is natural that national realities should loom large. Hence it is difficult to reach solutions and compromises, which indeed accounts for the fact that this proposal has been under discussion in the Council for almost two years. The Commission has thus come up with this new proposal; although it is far from ideal, it is certainly feasible and will allow a start to be made on the process of harmonising legislation on admission for family reunification purposes. I must therefore congratulate the Commissioner, Mr António Vitorino, on the pragmatic approach that has made it possible to deal with the points that were still causing problems and include the compromises that have in fact been reached in the Council. I consider this solution of a multi-stage process a judicious one, as it provides for great flexibility on the points where there is still stalemate, while at the same time granting national legislations some room for manoeuvre. I also congratulate him on the provision he has termed a rendezvous, which establishes that this flexibility and derogation will be subject to priority review after two years. For all these reasons, while congratulating Mrs Carmen Cerdeira Morterero on the work she has done, I have to criticise her attempt to broaden the scope of family reunification too far; I believe this is undesirable not just because it is not possible in this first stage in view of the diversity of national legislation on this subject, but also because it may lead to situations of uncontrolled abuse in which the receiving country is unable to create the necessary conditions for full integration and the peaceful coexistence of foreigners and nationals. I should also like to recall that we have here a directive that is attempting to impose minimum standards, whereby the Member States, according to their traditions and national legislation, have every right to adopt more favourable rules on family reunification. I hope, Mr President, that, regardless of our differences of opinion – which are natural and, in any case, essential in a democracy – we can pool our efforts to set up a clear, transparent legal framework to ensure that legal immigrants are integrated into the receiving countries. Family reunification is certainly one factor in this framework that will encourage the personal stability of the immigrant and support this integration.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I think that Mrs De Keyser’s report is very uneven. There are some chapters which are interesting and which open up new prospects, in particular regarding reproductive health and the rights of disabled persons. However, with regard to the central issue, to which Mrs De Keyser had wanted, in a way, to give preference, I think that she has dealt with it rather poorly. I am talking about the issue of the relationship between human rights and the war on terrorism and, to be more specific, the challenge which the war on terrorism poses to democracy. In the twentieth century, democracies were faced with the challenge of war. Could we go to war and still remain democracies? It was necessary to find solutions that struck a balance between the ideal and the constraints of reality. Now we have to demonstrate our creative abilities again in trying to strike a balance on current issues. We cannot place the rights of terrorists and the rights of the victims of terrorism on an equal footing. We cannot allow the war on terrorism to take second place to the war on those who are combating terrorism. Yet this, particularly with regard to the Middle East, is the unpleasant feeling produced by Mrs De Keyser, in seeking to put everything on an equal footing, whereas what we have to do is to invent a right of legitimate democratic defence against terrorism. This is the central issue, and unfortunately she has failed to address it, a fact which I find regrettable.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to thank Mrs Honeyball for her well thought-out report. The fact that this is an explosive subject is something of which we have become aware in the course of the committee’s reading. For a number of my fellow MEPs, the word ‘tax’ appears to be enough to give rise to great indignation. We are concerned here with coordination, not harmonisation, so you do not need to be so frightened. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party believes in the need to take great care with tax legislation at EU level. That is quite clear. We can, however, imagine a few exceptions, and one such is environmental tax, which is one of the things being indirectly proposed in this case. It is also of course a question of simplifying matters for the individual citizen, of providing better basic conditions for people’s freedom of movement and of reducing costs, as in the case of Mr Vatanen’s example involving the hugely expensive car in Finland. There should in all likelihood be almost complete agreement in this House about creating greater mobility for individuals and less bureaucratic rules in the internal market. Allow me to say a word or two about the environmental aspect. We know that road transport accounts for a very large proportion of carbon dioxide emissions. We also know that road transport, and thus the quantity of emissions, is on the increase. Matters cannot continue like this. That is something we ourselves have acknowledged. Through the Kyoto Protocol, the EU Member States have promised considerably to reduce, rather than increase, emissions. It is therefore probably a good strategy to devise simple and clear tax systems capable of benefiting the environment. Those of us who legislate have significant opportunities to influence the behaviour of both producers and consumers. A premium must be placed upon environmental considerations. It is a question of encouraging those motor manufacturers which produce cleaner engines and those consumers who exchange their dirty old cars for cleaner ones. It is also a question of buying the cleanest form of fuel. I also believe that use, rather than ownership, should be taxed in the first place. The issue of tax on diesel fuel is also interesting. Diesel engines have more efficient combustion and therefore release less carbon dioxide than petrol engines. Diesel, as a fuel, should not therefore be treated unfairly from a taxation point of view, as has also been pointed out in this House. These are important points of view. The Group has tabled an amendment rejected by the committee. It is about being able to put safety into the equation, as Mr Vatanen mentioned. We know that 45 000 people are killed each year on EU roads, in addition to all those who are injured. All this means enormous human suffering and considerable financial costs to society. If we can produce safer cars through favourable taxation, that is something it should be possible to experiment with. I therefore hope that you are able to support Amendment 2.

Political group: ELDR
In Europe, tens of millions of workers are wholly or partially unemployed. According to the rapporteur, however, everything is, apparently, more or less for the best, given that it stimulates ‘competitiveness’. The East European ‘social dumping’ to which she refers means in reality a collapse in the living standards of workers and, concomitant with this, mass marketing over here and the excess profits of the Western companies present in Eastern Europe. That is because large Western capitalist groups have bought up the companies of Central Europe. Others have ‘delocalised’ their production to Central Europe, and they sometimes subsequently transfer it to still poorer countries, sowing devastation behind them. Would the textile industry disappear from Western Europe? The French clothing industry has lost 134 000 jobs since 1986. Its shareholders have lost nothing, however. According to the industry bosses, this ‘modernisation of the production apparatus’, a total of 65% fewer employees, has not affected their turnover. A ban on redundancies, backed by the threat of requisitioning companies that make profits, would be the only industrial policy to protect workers. Many companies that lay off workers in order to operate elsewhere still make profits. Their accumulated profits should be used to maintain salaries even if it means dividing the work between everyone.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would just like to reiterate what the rapporteur, Mr Méndez de Vigo, said just now. There is no sense in setting up a Convention and then doing our level best to stop it succeeding. What do we mean by ‘succeeding’? Success means achieving substantial progress towards a stronger, more integrated Union, which will inevitably involve reducing the role and powers of each State, that is the problem, Mr Michel, and increasing the role and powers of the common institutions. This is your responsibility now as European Council, and this is the decision you must make: to reduce your powers. At Nice, you failed precisely because the intergovernmental method is an obstacle in itself, in that it favours those who are lagging behind and forces everyone to conform to their slow pace. The President-in-Office, Mr Michel, and President Prodi have been through some really tough times in recent months, times when the lack of joint instruments was starkly and sometimes cruelly clear. I feel that the Convention, a genuine Convention, should be an embryonic constituent assembly, and that it is the only thing that can make the future of the European Union brighter than the confusion which reigns at present.

Political group: Verts-ALE