GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I welcome the Commission's proposal and the amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy to that proposal, which seeks to improve the existing regulations on the transport of waste, particularly the transnational transport of waste. We recently had the problem of ships sailing from the United States to the UK for dismantling and recovery and when some of them arrived, it was discovered, as we had pointed out here in the European Parliament, that there were no facilities in the UK to do the work under European Union law. They are now lying there during the winter, to be returned to the United States, creating a further risk to the environment. I welcome the proposals in this report to tighten the definition of waste recovery, to encourage Member States to solve the household waste issue self-sufficiently. I would draw attention to the fact that we in the Republic of Ireland have introduced a 15 cent surcharge on supermarket plastic bags, which has been enormously successful in dramatically reducing the number of plastic bags being issued by supermarkets. This has had a significant impact on the amount of waste. We still have a huge waste problem in Ireland. There is huge resistance to incineration because of health fears, unreasonable in my view, but the fears are there. We have to concentrate on reduction and I hope that this new proposal will help to take us in that direction.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a Dane, I naturally hope that this can be done so that the Copenhagen criteria come full circle and we can append the final signatures in Copenhagen by the autumn. As a democrat and internationalist, I rather doubt, however, whether we shall make as much progress as that. I think there are still many obstacles. Some of these have been mentioned, but I think there are others that are also worth mentioning. We heard about developments from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the present time. Eastern and Southern European countries, emerging from planned economies and militarisation, were mentioned. All right, but what is to become of these countries if there are no planned economies or militarisation. The other day, we had a debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy about transatlantic links, and all the participants thought that European countries should prepare to get the defence budgets up to between 3 and 5% of GDP, simply in order to comply with general expectations of the EU’s military capacity. What does that mean for the candidate countries and their economies? I fear that, when it dawns upon them what conditions we are offering them, the people of Eastern and Central Europe will vote ‘no’ in the final referendums, and that would in my view be a catastrophe. I am dissatisfied, then, with the economic package prepared in connection with enlargement. I am dissatisfied with the statement that it must not cost anything. I am dissatisfied with the fact that the candidate countries must go through a transitional phase of ten years before they feel they are participating fully in the economic area, when it is also ourselves who are laying down transitional conditions and not allowing the principle of freedom of movement for the labour force to apply to the candidate countries on the same footing as it applies to other countries. When considerations of this kind become apparent to those people who, in due course, must vote on whether or not the candidate countries are to become members of the EU, then I fear we shall have problems. I would therefore call for an extra effort to be made in the last phase to alter all this about its not having to cost anything. I agree completely with Mrs Schroedter from the Group of the when she said that we are probably talking about the biggest peace project of our lifetime. Must it really rest upon its not having to cost anything? Are those of us in this cooperative venture really so small-minded that we believe that the greatest peace project of our lifetime must not cost anything? I should very much like to be involved in campaigning for the rich Member States to be required to pay for the project, and that also applies to my own country. Denmark must naturally be willing to pay. Saying that it must not cost anything is tantamount to not wishing wholeheartedly to get this mammoth project under way.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the common feature of all the statements made in this debate so far is the belief that investment in healthcare is extremely worthwhile and is an important way of achieving sustainable development and combating poverty, which are two objectives of European development policy. It is a proven fact that countries with a high standard of health and generous investment in this area achieve higher levels of development, including economic development. Some of us have already observed that we must persuade the governments in these countries to spend more on this area of healthcare and education, and I naturally underline this political demand as well. Yet it would be cynical in the extreme if we failed to point out that the structural adjustment programmes which must be undertaken by these countries to secure loans and funding from the international financial institutions now require them to spend less on prevention, public health and education. One point which is very important, in my view, is the involvement of women in devising birth control programmes and other reproductive health campaigns. Women – and I am not saying anything new – are extremely vulnerable to poverty. Furthermore, as the HIV/AIDS infection rates in southern Africa show, women are also affected by this disease to a far greater extent than men. Finally, I should like to say a few words about one of the most pressing issues addressed in the Khanbhai report, namely the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). I believe that in future, too, the European Union must assist the developing countries to benefit from the opportunities already afforded by the TRIPS agreement. Naturally, this is set forth in the provisions of the TRIPS agreement, but has not always been accepted by the pharmaceutical industry, as the case of South Africa shows. In my view, the proposal outlined in paragraph 41 of the Khanbhai report on reducing the period of patent protection is essential. I believe that when we talk about poverty, we must also identify tangible measures for the reform of the WTO. Otherwise, we will also lose credibility. As many of the previous speakers have pointed out, it is high time we took practical steps in this direction. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask, Mr President, that the speech Mr Schulz has just delivered should be delivered this very day to the German Federal Chancellor and to the chairman of his party! (Laughter, interruptions) I think that is the right way to ensure that people do not say one thing in Parliament and then, for whatever reasons, suddenly take up another position in the Council of Ministers, for there is one thing that must be clear: the attempt must not now be made to make good the damage done to the election campaign by German foreign policy stance towards the USA over Iraq, by doing more damage through the ill-timed announcement of a starting date for negotiations with Turkey. I think that, on this issue, we have to be perfectly clear in our own minds that the credibility of the whole accession process is dependent on the criteria being applied in precisely the same way to every single country, and on the timetable for it being adhered to. (Applause) Mr President of the Council, I would very much like to congratulate you on the work done by you and your government to date, including what has been done to prepare for the enlargement of the European Union. Together with the President of the Commission, you have to handle Monday's summit with Russia, which, among other things, has to do with the Kaliningrad question. It is my belief that there are two things that have to be dealt with together. On the one hand, the enlargement of the European Union and of NATO means that bridges have to be built to Russia, that important country, but Europe's history means that the European Union must also show itself to be the protector of small countries and that, in any arrangements reached in connection with the Kaliningrad question, the status and sovereignty of small countries must be taken into account if we want to become a credible Union. I wish both Presidents a very great deal of success in this incredibly difficult undertaking. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament's Kangaroo Group has made an essential contribution to making the European internal market a reality. Many of the Members speaking today belong to the Kangaroo Group. It is this group that is today presenting you with an initiative demanding the further development of the internal market as it is today into a true European home market. Over recent months, we have had talks with a large number of people in the business world in order to analyse where we have got to, what progress we have made in making the European internal market a reality, and it is the results of these that we are presenting to you today. For a start, the European internal market is a success story. A fundamental change occurred in the realities in Europe when the borders between the countries belonging to the European Community were thrown open. Standardised entry requirements then made European firms substantially more competitive, and the creation of new instruments, among which I will mention only the European Patent Office, makes it very much easier for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to gain access to the European market. We have, though, at the same time discovered that there are many areas in which no internal market exists, where we have fifteen domestic markets within a European internal market that does not really work. We all know, for a start, that this is true in financial services. It is the case in the life sciences, pharmaceuticals and other areas in which there is no internal market either, and it is true in the defence field, where the first hesitant moves are being made towards the creation of common policy and a common internal market. Last but not least, the leap from internal market to domestic market demands of us – and I say this also for Mr Harbour's benefit – that we should have a common European currency in all the countries of the European Union, and this development also requires us to work on the basis of a common economic model. This must, in my view, be that of the social market economy. We now call on the Commission to come up with a coherent concept for introducing this new stage in the development of the European home market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the motion before us will sink our work without trace. Thanks to the rapporteur, Mrs Schleicher, we had a full debate in committee and now we want to report on it to the European Parliament. My group is holding a special meeting right now but I feel this debate is so important that I wished to attend in person. We need this debate now so that the Swedish Presidency can bring this matter to a close. Because if we do not debate it now, this party statute, this regulation will not come to fruition under the Swedish Presidency. That is why I ask all the honourable Members to show willing and debate this today so that we can vote on it accordingly tomorrow, when the time comes. So I am most decidedly against this motion. I am also sorry to have to say as much to my friend and colleague Mr Dupuis. May I ask you in a spirit of friendship, Mr Dupuis, perhaps to reconsider.

Political group: PPE-DE
Conclusion No 3 of the Tampere European Council is clear: the European Union must stop illegal immigration. By introducing a short-term residence permit for victims of action to facilitate illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings who assist Member States in combating the networks by cooperating with the courts or the police, this directive attempts to find a solution to the serious problem posed by the increase in illegal immigration, and in particular the problem of the growth of networks of smugglers who are not acting on humanitarian grounds, not forgetting the exploitation of foreign nationals in the form of trafficking in human beings. This permit, which is renewable every six months, is accompanied (Article 12) by an authorisation for the holder to have access to the labour market, vocational training and education. At the committee stage, however, the vote went in favour of an amendment by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market which blocks such access for the holders of this residence permit. I shall therefore not support this report unless Amendments Nos 27 and 7, which delete Article 12 of the Commission’s proposal, together with the corresponding recital, are rejected, because if they are not, then the very essence of this directive is at stake.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is a point of order. I would like to express my deep concern at what I consider to be discriminatory treatment against certain MEPs yesterday during Questions to the Commission. I saw on television, to my amazement, Mrs de Palacio, Vice-President of the Commission and Commissioner for Transport and Energy, responding personally in front of the door to this Assembly and in front of the media to Question No 93 from an MEP, which was answered orally because the time limit available for Questions to the Commission had been reached. Not only have I myself, together with other Members who had tabled questions preceding Question No 93, not received a personal explanation from any of the Commissioners, but we have also not even received the mandatory response In my view, this is discrimination and, since there is no such thing as first-rate and second-rate European citizens and all the Members represent the European citizens, this matter should be addressed and discrimination such as the example I have pointed out must not take place again.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will first thank the rapporteur, who has analysed this very technical report with great expertise and proposed a range of editorial amendments that we can all support. We, likewise, welcome and support the Swedish initiative, which is before us now, to further develop the Schengen acquis. Some parts of it have, however, already been overtaken by reality, as the breakneck speed of developments in European internal affairs and justice policy since the terrorist attacks on 11 September might well have made this report and this submission largely obsolete, at least as regards extradition policy. Thus, the Council of Ministers of Internal Affairs and of Justice, on 20 September, had already set in motion a simpler procedure for handing over criminals and for the mutual recognition of court judgments. We welcome the fact that there is broad European agreement on criminal law and criminal procedure as well. This will lead to better combating of crime on our continent and promote the Community legal area. This being so, I could save myself further great speeches on the Swedish initiative, as Mr Marinho has already made the main points. I would, though, like to enlarge on one point, namely that the provisions of the 1995 EU Agreement on simplified extradition procedures and the 1996 EU Agreement on extradition between Member States are, according to this proposal, to be extended to Iceland and Norway as a further development of the Schengen acquis. So far, so good. Yet, out of Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and England, none have, to date, ratified one of these agreements. This is especially scandalous in view of the candidate states having undertaken to accept the Schengen acquis. The Member States must at last become aware of their need to set an example, specifically as regards the transposition and ratification of EU acts.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what I have said to the Council and to Minister Haarder is that they have decided unilaterally on a constitutional issue for the Union without consulting Parliament and without holding discussions. President Prodi has agreed with me and has told me that he is in favour of dealing with the issue at the Interinstitutional Summit at the end of the month. I have written to the President of Parliament and I would like to know whether the Presidency-in-Office of the Council is prepared to speak to Parliament about a unilateral decision which – as he has acknowledged – leads to absurd consequences.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, when we in the Committee on Development and Cooperation heard the person in charge of UNDP speak last year, what I heard him say was: we are extremely competent, give us the money and we will do the rest. I am pleased that you have adopted a different stance, and are urging us to respect our own priorities. But I am still left with the big question as to when the key actors will begin to join forces. UN aid might sound very prestigious, and expectations are high – with good reason, but in practice, too little aid from the UN bodies is filtering down to the smaller players at grassroots level where it could really make a difference. That is why I not only urge you to look at the big picture when it comes to cooperation with those key players, I also urge you to consider how this work can penetrate down to grassroots level.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, following intensive negotiations and an excellent job by Mr Busk, we are now in a position to debate his report here in Parliament. On behalf of my group, I should like to thank both him and Mr Maat for their work. I think that the compromise proposals negotiated will bring us another step forward in improving how pigs are kept. But it is and remains just a compromise. Optimum demands, often couched in emotional terms, are self-evident but cannot be implemented as they stand. In the final analysis, every new legal framework has a huge impact on the people affected. It is important here for us to have flexible transition times. Adjusting to other or new animal husbandry systems takes time and, more importantly, costs money. The conditions of competition are particular harsh in the pig production sector. I should like briefly to address another two points: first, extra space for fattening pigs and, secondly, castration. Neither is covered by the Commission proposal but I think that the European Parliament should set higher standards for the protection of animals here. The 1997 Scientific Veterinary Committee report on the welfare of pigs gives us a starting point here, especially for the space which fattening pigs require. We would not be able to get the general ban on the castration of pigs which some people are calling for across to German consumers in my view. Whether or not double vaccination of males can replace castration only time will tell. But I think this is the most practical solution. As far as the timetable is concerned, I think we have found an acceptable compromise. Holdings will have time to change their production methods over a fairly long period of time. Finally, I call on the House to adopt the report as it stands.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Beijing 1995 was a special event. Never before did so many countries, NGOs and journalists take part in a UN Conference. The Beijing Declaration and the Beijing Action Platform were adopted by 192 government delegations. The Beijing Action Platform serves as a major catalyst worldwide and in all areas policies have been tightened up, reviewed and renewed. Despite this, the problems have not yet been solved and the emancipation policy has not reached completion. In the ’70s, the European Community and the United Nations placed the topic of ‘women’ on the map for national governments. Attention has now waned. It is therefore up to Europe to generate renewed interest. I hope that we can accelerate implementation with the same energy and power which typified Beijing at the Beijing plus five Conference in June 2000 in New York. I strongly urge the EU to maintain the momentum and keep the interests of women at heart internationally. In this context, I would like to raise the following questions, Madam President. Firstly, the PPE deems the importance of NGOs and of women’s movements extremely high. They carry a special significance and strength by their activities at grass-roots level. Decisions do not take effect automatically. There are always inspectors required to ensure that decisions are transposed into policy and that policy is adopted. NGOs play a key role in the mobilisation of the political will to transpose policy. In most countries, the national emancipation support networks are also formed by the government. Hence my question: how does the Commission see the role of NGOs, including women’s movements, and the concerted action between these and the national government networks? Secondly, a European preparatory meeting had been planned for December 1999. This has now been postponed to February 2000. There is a great deal of confusion about this at the moment. The confusion which pervaded the previous preparatory conference should be avoided. Hence my second question: could the Commission indicate which NGOs will be invited and what will be expected from them? Thirdly, there is an ECE Conference in Geneva in January. The results of Beijing will once again be tabled there. Could the Commission give an indication as to what the EU’s input will be in this ECE Conference in relation to the Commission’s opinion of how much we have achieved, what hurdles still need to be overcome and what action is required? Finally, my fourth question concerns one of the results of Beijing that agreements have been reached regarding gender mainstreaming. This means the inclusion of emancipation objectives and the implementation thereof in regular policy. My question is: can the Commission indicate what it intends to do to ‘mainstream’ the results of Beijing and those of New York in the fullness of time, in European policy?

Political group: PPE-DE
Chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. – Madam President, I oppose referral back to committee. I note that nobody from Mr Gollnisch's group at any point in the committee raised any questions about the definition of regroupment, or of family, or of control. This matter has been debated fully in committee and debated here in plenary this morning. I see no reason not to proceed to a vote. I owe you an apology, Madam President, because I suspect you do not have in front of you the view of the rapporteur on all of the different amendments. If that is the case I would very happily, before the vote, explain to the House my position on the amendments put forward by the committee. But as for the amendments put forward for plenary, because they have been the subject of last minute debate, I will leave all of those to the wisdom of the House.

Political group: ELDR
Of course we are in favour of allowing officials and temporary servants of the political groups to take early retirement, if they so wish, under the terms set out in the proposal. But at the same time we cannot endorse the justification for these measures, namely to create an additional 1254 posts without incurring any additional expenditure. We cannot help feeling suspicious about the way these posts are to be filled, given that it will be mainly by ‘redeployment’ and ‘rationalisation’ rather than recruitment. And the fact that the expected 600 departures will be offset by only 258 new recruits certainly implies that the authors of this proposal are looking mainly to increase the workload on the remaining staff. That is why we abstained on this report. – Brok report (A5-0207/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL