GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, its undeniable merits notwithstanding, the report is very technical and sticks to the paradigm and framework of military security, and it lends disproportionate weight to considerations relating to the defence industry. There are only faint rumblings in the background when it comes to armed conflicts and human suffering. We must extend our study, on the one hand, not only to matters of binding agreements, but also to instruments other than those intended specifically for military purposes, voluntary disarmament, conversion, and making the work of the police and customs authorities more effective, and, on the other hand, the applicant countries just mentioned by Mr Wiersma. The code of conduct, as part of a common foreign and security policy, will also be binding on the applicant countries. We would also like the important NATO country, Turkey, which is also an important market, to be mentioned in this connection. It is only by complementary action such as this that we can move towards a more sustainable security in Europe and the world, one that is founded on disarmament and stability.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to endorse Mr Dupuis' remarks about not calling Macedonia 'FYROM' and to recommend that the whole of Parliament align its practice with the Dutch text of this week's agenda which lists the Council and the Commission statements on Wednesday morning as being about 'Macedonia', whereas the English text says 'FYROM'. Mr Dupuis is quite right. How can we expect a country to have an identity when it is called by an acronym? Let us please put an end to this nonsense.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, a single example, taken from the explanatory statement, illustrates just how laughable the report on the humanitarian activities of the European Union is. The report cites the absence of operational tools, especially helicopters, as the reason for the lack of international aid in general and the lack of aid from the European institutions in particular, in dealing with the floods in Mozambique, whereas – and who could forget? – there was no lack of helicopters, aeroplanes, every type of transportation equipment and even means of destruction when it came to intervening in Yugoslavia or Iraq. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the major powers, which are capable of mobilising huge resources in order to impose their hegemony on the rest of the world, are not prepared to make the slightest effort when it comes to saving human lives. Under these circumstances, the pacifying declarations on humanitarian aid by the European institutions are shamefully hypocritical and we have no intention of backing them, which is why we abstained from the vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, reproduction and sexual health and rights are a very important issue for developing countries where so much could be done to alleviate maternal deaths and the by-product ills of illegal abortions. Health care is desperately needed yet, as this bundle of e-mails shows, it is also a highly sensitive subject and one that must be treated with respect by those at both ends of the spectrum. I would therefore begin by thanking Mrs Sandbæk for the long negotiations she has had, firstly with the Council and Commission representatives, and then with the co-ordinators, the political parties in this House. In any such sensitive issue, no one will be completely happy with the outcome. That is why - even with the strong feelings I have on this subject - I genuinely believe that the compromise reached in the Committee on Development and Cooperation gives us a package that this House should accept. I know there is a problem with the budget aspects of this report, but I hope that the amendments tabled are acceptable so that this report can have a clear majority in favour at first reading. It would be a tragedy for sick women in developing countries if this report were delayed in any way because of budget technicalities. The facts speak for themselves. At least 75% of all maternal deaths and injuries could and should be prevented through reproductive health care. Reproductive health in the context of this report covers all areas related to reproduction and associated diseases such as HIV-AIDS. Through long-term investment in reproductive health supplies, services and the appropriate counselling much can be done to stop unwanted pregnancies and to go some way to controlling the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. I sincerely hope that honourable Members of this House will support this report. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a number of key dates have been mentioned repeatedly in this affair. The first is, without a doubt, 5 March 2003, when the United States asked airlines operating between the United States and Europe to make available all the data relating to passengers: absolutely all the data, not just, as had been the case thus far, the data necessary for air transport agreements. The second date is 15 March 2003. Just a week later, with timing worthy of an even greater cause, Parliament adopted the resolution calling for enforcement of the 1995 directive and the 1989 regulation on the protection of privacy. The third date is 23 September, today: six months after the adoption of the resolution, it would appear that nothing has changed; the United States has not responded to the Commission’s demands. We might ask whether the Americans are deaf or whether it is the Commission that is unable to find the rights words to get through to them. Thus, still today, travellers to the United States find themselves asked, in addition to the usual general questions, about their religion, their taste in food, where they last went on holiday and their close and distant relatives. That is certainly going too far. It is right that the Commission should raise its voice, that Parliament should call for more resolute endeavours such as an international agreement, perhaps, as proposed by the resolution. It would, however, seem appropriate to mention another date too: 11 September 2001. As we all remember, it was then that strict controls started to be enforced. Mindful of that appalling incident, I feel that perhaps we ought to be just a little more patient and realise that, behind what is certainly an annoying breach of confidentiality, there is still a great deal of fear. In any case, as the Commissioner said, a little flexibility might facilitate dialogue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, only two years ago, in Iran, two Jews were accused of spying for Israel. They were sentenced to death and were hanged. Today, thirteen Jews and several Muslims from Isfahan, Shiraz and Tehran have been arrested and face the same fate. Little is known about them. The accused, one of whom is sixteen years old, come from humble backgrounds: a cemetery caretaker, a shoemaker, a ritual performer of circumcisions, a teacher of Hebrew. It is hard to believe that these unfortunate people are really endangering Iran’s democracy. Since their arrest, there has been no news of them. When we start hearing about Jews being arrested and espionage trials, this is a very worrying sign. We are worried because we know what conditions of detention in Iran are like. This is worrying because no evidence, no specific charge has so far been made public and there has been no due hearing of the case. We are worried because the accused do not have the right to mount a defence. We are worried, Mr President and also sad, because we were delighted at the prospective rapprochement between Iran and the European Union. It is now obvious that this business compromises the rapprochement and until we have obtained guarantees that the rights of these prisoners are being respected, we cannot even consider it. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are now hostages coming between Iran and the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The aim of this report is, amongst other things, to enter into the budget the EUR 48.5 million mobilised to assist Portugal in accordance with the provisions of the Solidarity Fund in the wake of the tragic forest fires which swept through Portugal this summer. The Solidarity Fund was mobilised quickly, and this amending budget was adopted in one single reading. That is very welcome, since it ensures more rapid assistance from the EU budget following the applications presented. The amount now approved, however, is clearly insufficient given the costs of the direct damages, more than EUR 1.3 billion, and, in particular, given the total costs of the eligible damages, around EUR 104.3 million. It should be remembered that when Commissioner Schreyer was questioned in the Committee on Budgets, she expressed her willingness to review the sums allocated to Portugal if the damage estimates were to rise. This would be done principally through an amending budget. The Commissioner has kept her word by issuing this amending budget once the Portuguese Government provided further information. It is now the government’s turn to assess the current situation as regards the consequences of the forest fires, taking particular account of the effects of the rains in the fire-affected areas.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, although we consider the prospect of developing short sea shipping in Europe, as well as inland waterway transport, as something positive, Armonia Bordes, Chantal Cauquil and I have chosen, nevertheless, to abstain from voting on this proposal. The report indicates that the large sums of money which need to be invested in order to develop the infrastructure will come from public funds, whereas the way in which the infrastructure is used will be governed primarily by the requirements for profitability and competitiveness of the private companies that, according to the proposal, should be its main users.

Political group: GUE-NGL
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – On behalf of the Committee Legal Affairs and the Single Market, I want to draw attention to those items affecting the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. It is not possible to sit through this process without realising how many desirable projects for expenditure the European Union has and that, with finite resources, all budgets have to be trimmed here and there, but Members must give very particular attention to the problem of our two courts. The EU succeeds in being a Union under law only to the extent that it has an effective set of judicial tribunals. This Parliament has the ambition that the Charter of Rights shall become judicially cognisable. This is a highly desirable project but one which will put heavy demands on the judicial resources of the European Union. The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance both believe that they have reached the limit of their resources and that without adequate funding they will cease to be able to provide what the European Union needs. The European Union needs efficient, well-working courts without undue delays, without delays in court dockets. Because we are a polyglot, multilingual union, there must be speedy, clear and accurate translation of the courts' judgments into all the languages of the European Union in order that citizens and their legal advisers throughout the European Union are up-to-date on the law of this Union and how it is properly interpreted. If we do not reinstate the estimates that the Court of Justice itself made, we will fail more and more often. There are very specific points: we need referendaires in the Court of First Instance because the European Union has failed to fill vacancies for judges, we need upgraded posts and we need improved translation services. That is what the amendments by the Legal Affairs Committee amount to.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I would like to emphasise that I consider the fact that this summit has been held to be extremely positive. It has always been our opinion that every effort should be made to achieve this objective, as we have always felt that it would be a good opportunity to launch a genuine partnership that would be of mutual benefit to both continents. But we also feel that the results of the summit fell considerably short of what was possible and indeed desirable. I even think that it was the difficulties along the way that led to the idea that the event should be held in the first place, orthe formal meeting and the group photo, and not what could and should result from it, with a view to establishing a strategy for this partnership on a new footing. Indeed, the conclusions do not strike me as being adequate to address current needs and opportunities. It is obvious that economic issues are shaping a genuine rapprochement between the two continents, a fact which cannot be hidden by the individual positions of some Member States, which have a limited but positive influence. I am referring in particular to external debt relief for the LDCs. This is occurring because the European Union, which has been consistently and mistakenly withdrawing its cooperation, is being affected or guided in its cooperation with Africa by two fundamental ideas. On the one hand, by the prospect of transferring traditional, preferential relations to the rigid framework of the WTO, a fact that became obvious in negotiations on the post-Lomé agreement. On the other hand, by the priority being given to relations with Eastern Europe, which was clearly demonstrated by the cuts in expenditure on cooperation in the current budget year. It is obvious that with this kind of outlook and in the light of the enormous problems and shortfalls facing most African countries in terms of the economy, the environment, health, infrastructure, conflict resolution and poverty, amongst others, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cement a genuine partnership which is effective and lasting. This is the route we must follow in the future. I say “must” because, contrary to what has just happened, I hope that in future the European Parliament and the NGOs will be part of this process. I also say this because I hope that this summit will at least contribute to a greater awareness of the real problems that exist in the field of cooperation with Africa, and that it will represent a warning call for the need to change tack in this area.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Ladies and gentlemen, although the need for a future European public prosecution service would not seem to pose a problem in the long run, that of harmonising our policies on the protection of citizens’ rights and establishing a criminal procedure par excellence would seem to be more than essential. Indeed, how can one possibly set up a European public prosecution service when there is not even a European civil code or, what is more, a European criminal code? Even if this circumstance presents no direct obstacle to the initiative on the creation of Eurojust, there is in fact one institution over which the European Parliament exercises no control and over which judicial control by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, pursuant to Article 35 of the Treaty, is not applied. How could one possibly consider setting up Eurojust when Europol is already operating as a free agent? Two things must be borne in mind: we cannot contemplate any tangible improvement in judicial cooperation between the Member States without this clearly being conditional on the protection of the rights of the defence in legal proceedings involving more than one State. This is the aim of our amendments. It follows that citizens’ rights must be reinforced by adopting an effective instrument and recognising the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, not least with regard to its right of interpretation and its power to decide on a case or not. Moreover, the flaws in the new efforts to combat organised crime can be attributed to the division of competences between Europol and Eurojust, and these have not been clearly addressed in any case or at any point. Well, as you know, the issue of competence and the limits on this competence are central to this Community harmonisation aimed at improving the justice system. The clear allocation of fields of intervention to either judicial cooperation or police cooperation is not only needed to prevent any conflict of responsibilities, but is also fundamental in terms of guaranteeing observance of the democratic rules that form the bedrock of the rule of law. The Member States of the European Community subscribe to these on the basis of their existing legislative, executive and legal systems, in accordance with the principle of fundamental rights and common values. Eurojust must therefore slot into the relationship between judicial cooperation and police cooperation. The European Parliament is the supranational Community body that can determine this relationship, and I therefore propose that you support its validity by showing support for our rapporteur.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the words ‘entrepreneur’ or ‘employer’ occur only once in the Laeken final conclusions, and that in connection with the protection of workers when an employer becomes insolvent. I believe we have missed an opportunity here. At the European level, we are engaged in turning the internal market into a domestic market, and Europe is home, after all, to 18 million small and medium-sized enterprises. I am the President of the European SME-Union, and it is therefore a matter of concern to me that I should point out over and over again that our primary goals should include the safeguarding of existing jobs and the creation of new ones. At the end of the day, it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that provide two-thirds of all jobs, pay 80% of all taxes and train 85% of young workers. My second point takes us away from internal affairs to the international arena. How do we envisage the European Union's future representation in international organisations? In Parliament, we have now decided on this Committee on NATO. How are we to proceed in matters affecting the World Trade Organisation? There are many other areas; how does Europe intend to take a leadership role in the future? The third point that concerns me is in fact the Council's secretariat. I believe we should set up a body composed of the best minds in the secretariat as well. It should be possible for the European Council, the European Parliament and the Commission to be equally represented on it. Our objective should be for the ideas produced by the best minds to eventually bring us a result at which the citizens of Europe will rejoice.

Political group: PPE-DE
The European Union must meet the needs of a society that is based on knowledge and open to the world. The Erasmus World programme will enable us to respond to these challenges by stimulating the quality of higher education and by promoting cultural exchanges in cooperation with third countries. Hence the importance of this report, which I support. European higher education must be acknowledged to be of high quality and in line with the needs of the labour market. The success of this programme will only be assured by a budget increase that will provide the various projects with appropriate funding, and also by the rigorous selection of the candidates, establishments and teaching staff. Scholarships that are awarded must enable all categories of candidates to participate in these exchanges. It is particularly important to publicise this programme through communication and information projects and by drafting common working instruments that do not constitute barriers to the movement of candidates. Lastly, the name ‘Erasmus Mundus’ is particularly felicitous, because it gives the programme a more global dimension without favouring the language of any Member State.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, before the vote I should like to make a point of order. I refer to Rule 118 of the Rules of Procedure. This is about all Members of the House having access to all the necessary documents. With a view to the vote, which will probably take place on Thursday, I should like to confirm the substance of what Mr Lannoye said on this issue. There are Parliament resolutions in which we have made our views on cloning very clear. That was also true of therapeutic cloning! People are acting now as though the proposals put forward by the British Government were something entirely new. In actual fact we have already discussed this and Parliament has always been opposed to it. The votes were always controversial. Those who now want to prevent the debate and a resolution have always represented a liberal standpoint. But a majority of Parliament has always adopted an uncompromising position. It would not be very consistent if now – since the issue is topical – we were not to stand by our earlier statements. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am speaking as coordinator for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I was very surprised by the letter which you have just read from the chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee. Yesterday, I received a letter from the chairperson, which faithfully reflected what had happened in the Legal Affairs Committee: following a discussion, it was decided not to recommend that Parliament take note, leaving the issue on the table for further discussion. The letter which you have read reflects the personal motives which the chairperson and perhaps other MEPs put forward, but which does not reflect the point of view of the Legal Affairs Committee. Specifically, the Socialist Group’s position was that, in view of the Act of 1976, all this Parliament could do is what Mr Barón just said, that is to say, take note (prendre acte) of the decision of the French Government, with no other condition. The possibility of giving an explanation was raised, and I argued that that would mean a new vote. No new vote took place and therefore – I repeat – the views expressed in the letter which you have just read reflect Mrs Palacio’s personal position and not the position of the Legal Affairs Committee.

Political group: PSE