GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in most cases, the alienation between institutions and citizens revolves around people’s prosperity. The issues that are around in our countries are a fear of immigrants, anxiety about loss of jobs and concerns surrounding the relocation of businesses. Those issues are equally present in the candidate countries, where joining the European Union is measured by the acquisition of, and increase in, income and by employment. If we study the latest employment figures in the Central European countries, we see that employment has fallen everywhere in 1999 and 2000, except in Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia. This is why it is vital that we give our attention to this development. As far as social policy is concerned, I should like to talk mainly about two points. I tend to think along the same lines as Mrs Maes. Paper is accommodating, but one must also learn to read between the lines and look for the hidden meaning. I should first like to turn my attention to social security. The great danger is that traditional social security will be dismantled before the new system of social security is operational or is fully operational. As a consequence, a whole generation of people will not be able to benefit from either system. My experience and the discussions I have had in a number of countries show this to be true. This is a terrible prospect, since it indicates that a large group of people are becoming poorer. These people compare the situation with the previous one and feel that they are worse off now than in the past. That is the first point and I would ask the Commission to focus much more closely on the problem of social security than it has done to date. Secondly, I should like to mention the organisations which are being set up and developed by the social partners. Again on the basis of my local contacts, my observation is that here too things are progressing with great difficulty and very slowly. So, we must once again look beyond the words and face reality. Let us help them and let us help the social partners to help each other.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the title of the World Economic Forum in Davos/New York was ‘Leadership in difficult times’, and that of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre was ‘Another world is possible’. People said that the former was a forum for a ruling class with no mandate, a sort of shadow cabinet for the globalised economy, and that Porto Alegre was nothing more, indeed, than a colourful, inconclusive jamboree. I, however, feel that, this year, some small degree of rapprochement was achieved. The world’s leaders felt less sure of themselves and included subjects such as debt, poverty and sustainable development in their debates. The 51 000 people who took part in the Porto Alegre forum want to do more than just protest and are drawing up proposals in an attempt to influence decisions. This rapprochement, this loss of confidence in one-dimensional, pre-established solutions – and I would like to say here to Mr Watson that we are not blinkered but are in favour of innovation – should be a major opportunity for an initiative from the European Parliament and the European Union in general. We are the only supranational directly elected legislative house in existence. The European Union is the only example of potentially innovative governance. Well then, the European Union must address both the 51 000 Porto Alegre protesters and the exclusive Davos club. As a Union, we must take an innovative, non-conformist approach to at least three issues. The first is the issue of sustainable development. The Johannesburg Summit is approaching: we are not satisfied with the initiatives the Commission is pursuing in this regard and we are concerned by the fact that sustainable development will not be discussed at all at Barcelona, or only very indirectly. The second is the age-old, pitiful question of development aid. It is very sad that we will not be going to Monterrey with a unified European Union position, and we are concerned – and displeased – by the failure to improve on the probable 0.4% of GDP in development aid. That is not the way to consolidate global governance. The third and final question is democracy. We know that there are entire States which are controlled by multinationals and that politics is yielding increasingly to pressure from the business world, and the Bush Administration is a daily testimony to this. As Europeans, how can we find another way? I believe it is our duty to do so.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the most important part of this report is where it calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a directive, implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which would make discrimination on the grounds of age impossible. Discrimination does exist. There are countries in the European Union whose national health services will no longer pay for operations on people above a certain age, as if to say what use is this operation to this old person now? In many cases rehabilitation following illness is no longer available to old people under the national systems. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. There is one Member State whose parliament has discussed whether voting rights should not be removed from the over seventies. The debate is over now, but this was discussed. In all of the Member States there are laws which quite simply forbid people above a certain age from working. This is discrimination on the grounds of age. Please do not come to me with the popular cry: 'But surely, then, we are taking away jobs from young people'. That reminds me of the debate in the sixties about keeping us women out of the labour market. Then, people also said that women must not work so that the men could. This was the line of argument taken by the unions for a long time. And they are still banging the wrong drum today. Can we not please finally put a stop to this! Almost all of the speakers have mentioned the 'ageing workforce'. Mr Blokland has even spoken of ageing and greying. One colleague has said that it is not we who are living for too long, it is not our society which is too old, but that centuries ago people had to die much earlier than the good Lord had preordained in our genes. 110 or 120 years is quite right! Over the last 100 to 150 years we have experienced the greatest social revolution of all time, for our human life span has doubled. We have been given a second life. 150 years ago, our average life expectancy was 40 years; today it is 80 years. A girl born today is likely to live for 100 years or more. We should not call this ageing or even “greying”. Stop using these words, because that really is discrimination. The future of all of you is old age. I would advise you to make provisions for your future! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, for a long time the future of Côte d’Ivoire looked bright. It was one of the countries in Africa held up as an example of stability and economic growth. Little by little, Côte d’Ivoire fell into a cycle of violence, chiefly since the introduction of ivoirité, or Ivorian identity, a concept that is in fact comparable with apartheid. It is absolutely clear that the ruling political class, the President included, is capable of anything in order to reinforce its power, and, and in so doing, does not even balk at taking the path of ethnic cleansing. The parallels with the events of ten years ago on the eve of the genocide in Rwanda are alarmingly great. There is of course no immediate alternative to the Marcoussis Agreements, but Mrs Kinnock is right in saying that these may well have to be evaluated and the necessary adjustments made. At any event, the main problem is their enforceability. The international community must no longer stop at lip service. Commissioner, the European Union must consider all possible initiatives and instruments, including deferring aid to Côte d’Ivoire until the government is prepared to implement the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements consistently and in their entirety. Remaining silent and looking on passively today could very well be interpreted as passive complicity tomorrow. Please let us avoid a repeat of Rwanda.

Political group: ELDR
The World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Intolerance can and must be seen as a unique opportunity to undertake an in-depth examination of these disturbing phenomena and to adopt measures that could put an end to them. It is nevertheless crucial that we do not conceal the fact that many of the intolerant attitudes seen in our societies are caused by feelings of insecurity resulting from situations created by the collective redundancies of thousands of workers, by the increasing lack of job security and by the loss of rights. Nevertheless, given the reduction in funds that the European Union and the Member States give to the LDCs and the general lack of support for their development, we might easily conclude that the only chance of survival for many men and women from these countries is to emigrate to the ‘rich’ countries. Furthermore, given that barriers to the movement of immigrant workers in the European Union are being continually erected, and this is a situation that could now be changed to some extent in order to attract the technical specialists that we are lacking, and that problems are systematically created for the family reunification of these citizens, it is hard to believe that we are contributing to their integration. We shall be voting in favour of this resolution, but we feel that, in addition to declaring politically correct intentions, we must take action. This is why the European Union must set an example.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that alarming events have been taking place in Moscow in the past 24 hours, mainly aimed at the independent media and the freedom of the press. Media-Most runs the independent television of Russia and its organisation has a number of radio stations and independent magazines. Mr Andrey Tsimaylo, the deputy chairman of Media-Most, was yesterday arrested and subjected to five hours of interrogation, following which Mr Anton Titov, the financial director of independent television, was arrested at the home of his mother, the door having been broken in by the security police. A number of other junior employees of independent television are being arrested and interrogated as we sit here now. This is an alarming development and it goes beyond the personal question of Mr Gusinsky, which I have raised before and, as is well known, I am an adviser to him. Madam President, could we take this matter into consideration? You met the deputy chairman of Media-Most in June, Mr Malashenko. You spoke to him about this problem of government pressure on freedom of the press and you suggested that something should be done. Can we try to find some way of conveying our views to the Russian Government and sorting out this question of freedom of the press and expression which bedevils relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, there have been fears expressed repeatedly in connection with the reading of the framework directive on water, that it could be possible later on in the EU to transport water from one Member State to another against the wishes of the first country. Does the President-in-Office see such a threat as likely, and is there a need to protect Member States against it?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to join with Mr Pronk in asking you to look critically at the preliminary decisions of the Committee on Budgets regarding the deliberations of the specialist committees, in my own case the preliminary decisions on health and environmental policies. For example, subsidising tobacco cultivation in the EU is simply no longer justifiable. As you all know, this special form of cultivation is subsidised each year to the tune of EUR 1 billion, despite the fact that there is no market at all for European tobacco within the EU and it has to be exported. What is more, we are working right now on the new directive on tobacco cultivation, the main objective of which is of course to explain to the consumer the harmful effects of smoking upon health. This is supposed considerably to reduce tobacco consumption within the EU. To go on subsidising tobacco cultivation at the same time is a downright contradiction in terms. Instead, these subsidies must be removed step by step, though on condition that the farmers concerned are given structural aid for the purpose of switching production to other goods. At the same time, budget funds from the Research and Information Fund ought to be made available for the purpose of researching into alternative forms of production for farmers who at present cultivate tobacco, and this is something we want to see happen. I think these measures are at present the most sensible solution where the tobacco issue is concerned. I am no dreamer. I know that this proposal is not at present capable of winning a majority, but I should like to call upon as many fellow MEPs as possible to vote in favour of this package of measures in order simply to set an example so that we might finally make some headway on this issue. Another important point relates to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in London. This definitely requires an increase in its budget, for we ourselves have of course given it a new additional task. This agency is to promote the development of medicinal products – so-called orphan drugs – for rare diseases. This has already been reported on today. We ourselves have therefore arranged for corresponding legislation which did not come into force until April of this year. It is merely being consistent now also to ensure that our decisions can be put into effect and that this agency’s funds are increased. On the other hand, it would not be in our interests to support agencies whose work we cannot see as being of any discernible consequence and which do not produce any visible results. In our view, that is the case with the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. The Committee on Budgets has also recognised this. It is not a question of regularly increasing the funds of any old agencies but of promoting work of proven value. This is what I am asking you to do, and I am asking you to vote accordingly.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it may seem surprising that we on the left congratulate the rapporteur and welcome his report, but we are convinced by its content. Mr Trakatellis talks of a principle which we share: health is not a commodity which can be traded. And he speaks of two objectives: health promotion and disease prevention, and the whole of his proposal refers to these two objectives, and it is essential that a health programme achieves them. Initially he talks about the necessary coordination, not only in the networks which deal with health, but with the Member States and also with the non-governmental organisations. And, as an epilogue, he also talks about a proposal which we agree with: to create a centre for the coordination and monitoring of the health situation. We also agree that we must have the capacity for rapid reaction in the face of the kind of threats to health which we have seen recently and continue to see. We must also overcome inequalities; there are still inequalities between the Member States and within the Member States themselves, and the rapporteur and the Committee on the Environment remind us that these inequalities must be overcome, and place great emphasis on the ongoing training of doctors and health staff, but also on the health education and training of schoolchildren. We think this is essential. The rapporteur also speaks of the risks which today are of great concern to the population and which relate to the health effects of mobile telephones and mobile communications in general, with the tall masts that are now all over our towns producing electromagnetic waves. He also discusses the risks of radioactivity and, specifically, of something which was also talked about – and this is a debate which should continue – of the health risks of depleted uranium and other risks. I believe that this is a fine report and that its deserves Parliament’s support tomorrow.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have voted in favour of the Goebbels report and, as such, for Greece’s joining the single currency. I have voted with just as much conviction for the amendments to the Pomés Ruiz report. These amendments specifically underline a sensitive issue which gave us plenty to talk about, not only in the plenary debate, but also in the Economic Committee meetings. Many MEPs have expressed doubts about, in particular, the sustainability of the convergence and stability policy of the Member States. We have all been able to see how the pleas addressed to Greece to make further efforts to reduce its debt and to obtain lasting stability do not only pertain to the situation of Greece itself, but also to the discontent about the way in which other Member States with a very high debt ratio have behaved, not making sufficient use of the options available to them, as a result of economic growth and low interest rates, to reduce the debt. Let us hope that Parliament’s subdued criticism gets through to the relevant parties. This includes the Belgian government, which has already made so many pledges that even the press is starting to question the viability of this spending impulse. Precisely because the hesitation expressed on the occasion of Greece’s joining the euro does not so much concern Greece as represent a general criticism, I am of the opinion that Greece should not be allowed to become the victim of this hesitation. Greece is welcome in euroland, and all Member States in the euro zone must respect the letter and spirit of the Stability and Growth Pact. - Sellafield resolutions

Political group: PPE-DE
The new directive on deliberate release of GMOs aspired to “include all direct and indirect ecological aspects”. I have to remark that the end result is still a long way from the stated objectives and that the niggling issues have been brushed aside. Therefore, the issue of environmental liability covering damage resulting from GMOs has been postponed to a later date, as has consideration of potential cumulative long-term effects associated with the interaction of various GMOs. It is clear that we are allowing the release of GMOs in agriculture without being fully aware of the risks that we are taking and without knowing who shall be held legally responsible for the damage either. The authors of the directive express doubts, proving once again that a moratorium must be imposed on the production of GMOs, for ecological and public health reasons. By merely attempting a half-hearted restriction on the release of GMOs, the directive denies the need for a moratorium, and that is the main reason why I am voting against the report. Furthermore, the social and democratic implications of the spread of GMOs are clearly understood; spreading GMOs strengthens the domination of the agro-industry over farmers and consumers. As such, the directive gives more than a fair share to big business and that is the second reason why I am voting against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, as has already been mentioned, this week is certainly not a normal plenary part-session. For two months, this thing we call war has been in progress, a terrible war against terrorism. This very morning, Italy’s military involvement and its support for the United States have taken on a practical form, for indeed, today, Italian troops are leaving to go and help the United States and all the European Union troops which are actively, practically engaged in the war against this barbaric civilisation. Well then, in the light of this development, to which we must certainly not become used or accustomed, the debate on the agenda, a Commission communication scheduled for Wednesday, seems decidedly inadequate. Madam President, I expected something more! I do not know what is happening to the Members, but when I go home I am surrounded by European citizens, my fellow citizens, all asking me the same thing: “What is your view of these events down at the European Parliament? What can you say to reassure us and allay our concerns?” Well then, I am frankly disappointed by the presence, with all due respect to her, of the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs Durant, whose remit is transport, not war, and though she will, I am sure, have a dramatic speech from the Presidency to read out to us. I feel that it is almost an affront to Parliament that the Belgian Prime Minister is not going to be here at this important time. Moreover, I would ask you, Madam President, to see whether it would be possible for Mr Solana to be present here too, for he is our foreign policy representative and it is his duty, or rather his obligation, to provide us with clear, practical, specific information. We cannot be content with just another declaration of good intentions or the assumption of a political position. We are at war, but some people appear not yet to have understood the full implications of that fact or the importance of the present time. To give practical effect to this speech, then, I call upon Mr Solana to come to Parliament and tell us clearly what is happening in Afghanistan so that we know not just the details of the military operations but also the extent of our combined endeavours in the field of humanitarian aid to help the communities affected.

Political group: PPE-DE
On a point of order, Mrs Jackson's question No 67 should have been taken with this. Perhaps if Mrs Jackson comes in there will be time for her to ask a supplementary because the two are on the same issue. I should like to ask the Commissioner whether Mr McHugh, the owner of the Atlantic Dawn, has applied to use the EU-Mauritanian fisheries agreement? The Atlantic Dawn and the Veronica are landing in Las Palmas. Since the Veronica is now a flag-of-convenience vessel, what is the Commission doing to stop the Veronica from offloading in Las Palmas? When you mention the reduction of capacity in the Irish fleet, you are overlooking the fact that the Veronica is the reduction and that it has now gone to a flag-of-convenience country where it can fish without any controls whatsoever. I thought the Commission was going to come down hard on this whole issue. Quite frankly, you have not answered the question by Mr McCartin in relation to the fact that you have taken legal action against Ireland on two counts, one of which concerned the registration of this vessel. It was registered as a merchant marine vessel and then given a fishing licence. The Irish Government was wrong and now Mr McHugh has found ways to get around the Commission to basically facilitate himself. As far as I can see, the registration problem still stands because it is now in the fleet but it was irregular to begin with.

Political group: Verts-ALE