GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, until a few weeks ago, the distinction between conventional weaponry such as light and heavy arms, on the one hand and weapons of mass destruction on the other, in other words, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, seemed relatively clear. Now the very concepts of what constitutes a weapon are in doubt, when a civilian aeroplane can become a missile when guided by a murderous ideal. We may be tempted to adopt an attitude which is at once relativist, with regard to the means, and ultra-safe, with regard to actions. I would say, however, that there is now a greater need than ever to prevent tendencies that are not firmly anchored in politics. Particularly at a time when, as is becoming obvious, we need to speed up the construction of our common foreign and security policy, which must be given the appropriate resources and be supported by an effective shared commitment. This policy must go ahead on the basis of cohesion, which also means trust between Member States, and of coherence between the ideas that are put forward and practical action. We are today discussing an issue, arms exports, to which these principles must be applied, today more than ever before. It would, of course, be better if there were no need to discuss weapons, but, unfortunately, the world we live in is not like that. The European Union’s Code of Conduct on arms exports adopted in 1999 is a key instrument for harmonisation and control in this field. With regard to the Council’s second annual report, on implementing this Code of Conduct, the rapporteur himself welcomes the greater transparency and the convergence between Member States arms exports policies and the adoption of common principles by third countries. He also, however, highlights the need to go further, putting an end to illegal sales and exercising greater control over arms dealers’ fees and on the destination of arms. I therefore support the thrust of this report, although once again, I wish to emphasise the need for coherence and cohesion in this field.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this year’s general rapporteur for the budget, Mr Göran Färm, has produced an excellent report on the implementation of the budget and I wish to thank him sincerely for that. The report quite rightly examines two key points in detail, those being outstanding commitments and decommitment, that is, the N+2 rule. As I mentioned earlier on, outstanding commitments stood at EUR 126 billion in April, which was an increase of over EUR 15 billion in one year. These outstanding commitments were especially evident in the Structural Funds where they stood at EUR 94 billion, which is to say the amount for appropriations for almost three years. The situation is grave. At the start of the present programming period the N+2 rule was approved. It states that there is to be decommitment if no payments have been made for two years. The Commission seems to be interpreting the rule in such a way that advance payments, which are not even based on any invoices presented, should be regarded as payments. A project can be kept alive in this way from one year to the next by means of small advance payments, even though the project itself might not have even begun to be implemented. The Commission should improve the way the N+2 rule is monitored and restore its original purpose.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, like Mr Caudron and all of us here, wonder what we can do to stop this annual event of our report on human rights becoming a ritual. I feel that there is something we could do, and that is to press on with our practical monitoring and condemnation of human rights abuses, to implement the resolutions adopted in this House without confining our duties to the declarations of principle that we write on our cards, to provide – as the Commissioner, too, has said – funds and practical resources, as well as training and support, for those who work in the field of human rights, starting with the United Nations, and, lastly, to support journalists – many journalists have been killed in the past year, Commissioner – whom I believe are a source of witness and verification which is important, not least for Parliament. With regard to Mr van den Bos’ report, it would appear clear that we need to prevent religion becoming a divisive factor once again in the third millennium, as it has been for a long time. We need to avoid fresh forms of intolerance and new forms of discrimination developing in the name of God, not least in some highly civilised countries, in some highly civilised Western democracies: a world divided and traversed by new crusades would be a terminally ill world, and we must prevent it. Today, Mr President, I believe that the battle for human rights can no longer be seen as a battle of principles, that it cannot be won by cunning or by taking short cuts. We therefore call upon the Council to make every endeavour to ensure that the human rights clause – we have already heard this in the Council’s speech – is not seen as just a minor addition but represents a firm ideal of legal and democratic civilisation which Parliament will ensure is never diminished.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I think the rapporteur wants to comment. (Laughter)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, on the Nicholson report, I voted against it because paragraph 20 seeks to delay the completion of the second nuclear reactor at Cernavoda. It is a “CANDU” nuclear reactor of western design. There are no safety implications involved. Paragraph 20 of the report calls for the creation of a sustainable energy strategy. That strategy has already been put in place. It has been paid for through the PHARE programme. I am surprised that a committee like the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy seems to be unaware of this fact. For that reason I voted against the Nicholson report. That particular item was inaccurate, unnecessary and an aggravation to a country which is seeking to join us. I wish that the anti-nuclear people on these committees would realise that this constant sniping at the applicant countries on this issue is not doing our relations with them any good at all.

Political group: PSE
I would first of all like to congratulate the Belgian Presidency on having managed to convince the Belgian government to withdraw the linguistic objections which, according to what was said earlier, were hindering the approval of the Regulation on models and designs. Furthermore, we are pleased that, again under the Belgian Presidency, this Regulation, which is so essential to the operation of the internal market, and also to the operation of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market in Alicante, can be approved immediately.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what is especially gratifying about Mr Schwaiger’s report is that it shows that Parliament has, for its part, been able to increase coherence in the aims of the talks. The Union, through its earlier decisions, has been committed to consistency in different areas of policy. Thus, for example, trade policy must be in harmony with the Union’s policies on developing countries and the environment. Both areas of policy are now emphatically raised in the report and, as a new Member of Parliament, I can say that it comes as a pleasant surprise. Similarly, I could say that the proposed report gives a very balanced account of the position of the WTO in relationship to other multilateral treaties. In addition, strong support for the cooperation that has begun between the ILO and the WTO promises an even better level of coherence in this area. Once a working model has been found, it should also be applied to the way the WTO relates to other international organisations, which have overseen the drafting of similar agreements. It is also important that Parliament now outlines the importance of these multilateral agreements in the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure. As a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I am satisfied that we are trying to include the precautionary principle in the set of rules of the WTO. The Union’s negotiators must be able to convince the other sides that the EU goal is not protectionism but the safeguarding of the welfare of the consumer. The Union would be wise to invite NGOs to discussions about the WTO while the round of talks is proceeding. Not only would it strengthen the legitimacy of Union action on our own turf, but the global NGO arena itself could help our negotiators to achieve the goals of the Union. Experience shows that debate in the NGO arena easily spreads from one continent to another. As the other sides unfortunately lag far behind, the EU needs the backing of the NGOs in its work to transform the WTO into a sustainable organisation in the areas of the environment, health and social welfare. At the Seattle round, the scope and power of the WTO will grow significantly, and that is why the EU should ensure that the effects of the liberalisation of trade and the action of the WTO are continually appraised from the point of view of ecology and fairness.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Weiler, on the quality of her report. This House has been an enthusiastic supporter of the quantitative objectives laid down at the Lisbon and Stockholm European Councils with regard to the overall rate of employment, the rate of female employment and the rate of employment amongst the elderly. Unemployment, as has already been said, is one of the most serious economic and social problems the European Union faces and, currently, one in twelve citizens is unemployed, with the worst-affected groups being women, young people, the elderly, the disabled and members of ethnic minorities. The 2002 guidelines for employment must be accompanied in all aspects by qualitative objectives, hence the importance of adopting special measures for incentives and action in the field of economic and social cohesion for the least-developed regions which lack the appropriate structures. One pillar of the employment strategy, the entrepreneurial spirit, calls for priority to be given to the creation and growth of SMEs, which have enormous potential for job creation, as we can see from the most recent data from Eurostat, which shows that micro-enterprises with between one and nine workers made the greatest increase in terms of job creation in the European Union. The report quite rightly highlights reducing bureaucratic and tax obligations as a means of stimulating the creation and growth of companies. Nevertheless, we must reiterate that active support must be provided for the creation of infrastructures to support research and development, vocational training and lifelong learning so as to ensure the quality and continuity of employment. We all know that the European Union will only become a knowledge-based economy if all Member States make investment in human resources their absolute priority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the unfortunate incident involving the Erika should in fact, as others have said this afternoon, constitute a decisive watershed which will see the end to this type of accident in the European Union where, since 1967, there have been seventeen accidents involving large oil tankers; more than one every two years. The economic and social damage, which we have spoken about today, in terms of the loss of jobs and fishing and tourist resources, is so great that they fully justify decisive and thorough action on the part of the Community institutions. Commissioner, I would also like to thank you for the speedy response of your department to this event and the measures which are being adopted and implemented. I trust that these measures will, in a few months, give rise to a clear and convincing legal instrument – a directive, possibly – which will put an end, once and for all, to these 21st Century pirates, who deprive us all of the wealth and beauty of the sea. I would like to comment on one of the measures to be taken, which was mentioned by the Commissioner and some of my colleagues. I am referring to the double hull, which consists of two layers of steel, with containers divided into two tanks. Commissioner, there are many experts who consider that the double hull is not sufficiently safe and propose the so-called ‘ecological hull’ in which case, in the event of an accident, the seawater penetrates the containers and, as a result of pressure, the oil is transferred to other tanks. Commissioner, I believe that it is time to opt for the safest technically possible measures. It is therefore not sufficient to merely reproduce the legislation in force in other countries. I believe that we can and must improve the existing legislation in this regard. Any cost-benefit analysis which truly takes into account all the harm occasioned to persons and the environment by these accidents, is bound to support this approach.

Political group: PPE-DE
Economic growth in the EU as a whole fell to 1.6% in 2001 (compared with 3.3% in 2000), the unemployment rate remained more or less stable at 7.7% in December 2001, compared with 7.9% in December 2000, the rate of inflation rose from 2.1% in December 2001 to 2.5% in January 2002 with the introduction of the euro and the ratio of investment to European GDP is far lower than that required for sustainable growth. Instead of public investment, a radical employment policy programme and meaningful concepts to guarantee health care and pensions, the rapporteur calls for strict compliance with the stability and convergence pact as an end in itself. His proposals for achieving this are as old as they are misguided: he calls for expenditure to be capped (naturally with social transfer benefits as the main source of savings) instead of calling for improvements on the income side and he calls for wage restraint at a time when wages are generally falling in real terms and transnational groups are making a killing and often do not even have to pay any tax. How is this sort of strategy expected to force demand? I cannot vote in favour of such a report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We agree that the situation in Dover calls for a reaction on our part, but I also think it shows something else. In the Danish media, we have heard a 14 year-old Afghan boy say that, if you have to become a refugee, you need an agent. The word ‘agent’ was his own, but to some extent it shows how difficult it is for refugees in fact to make their way to a place in which they can request asylum, and that is of course where the whole problem lies. I should like to ask how the Council views the fact that this further contributes to criminalising humanitarian actions. It is as if we stand midstream at a place where two currents, formed of immigrants and refugees, often combine. What is the Council thinking of? If this area is further criminalised, the result will be to have contributed to a situation in which only unscrupulous and cynical people and those out to make money from the situation will stay behind. Is it really the Council’s policy to help bring about a situation in which the money of poor and persecuted people ends up in the clutches of the mafia and similar organisations?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, these oversight reports by Parliament are very important because we need not only to examine new legislation but to look back to see what has happened to the legislation we have adopted. Mrs Corbey is quite right to name names. The Member States were supposed to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the packaging directive before 30 June 1996. That did not happen. Two things should flow from the findings Mrs Corbey has put before us. Firstly, we must ask whether the original directive, as Mr Florenz has said, was defective or whether ministers were not honest with themselves about what they could achieve when they adopted it. The answer is probably a combination of the two. Secondly, we should ask why the Commission did not act more quickly than it has to investigate why the directive was struggling to gain universal compliance. I regret that Mrs Corbey did not focus on these questions. Individual countries have had very different experiences as each has put a recovery system in place. My own evidence from the United Kingdom is that our system has been too bureaucratic. One businessman in Cornwall complained to me that he had to employ a graduate specifically to keep a track of his firm's obligations under the directive. What lessons are there from our experience which could underpin the revision of the directive, or at least a revision of the way that Member States are applying it? The Commission is wrong if it proposes higher targets for recycling. This is the easy way out, but the wrong way. Such targets cannot take account of the considerable variations and circumstances between Member States, so we will end up with an even bigger range of results than we have now, creating trade barriers and distorting competition. If we are to get EU environmental law that really makes a difference, we must, within much broader targets, allow Member States to adopt solutions best suited to their respective local environments and economies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on 15 April this year, following a full debate with the Council and the Commission, we adopted a resolution that was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of this House. In that resolution we called on the Council and the Commission to do their utmost to protect the life and health of the Iraqi people and to put an end to its suffering. We called for the embargo on food and medicines to be lifted, because it hits the Iraqi people and not Saddam Hussein. We called for an immediate stop to the bombing the USA and the United Kingdom is engaged on without a mandate from the UN Security Council, because again this hits and punishes not the culprits but the victims in Iraq. At the beginning of that resolution we of course confirmed and underlined the Iraqi Government’s obligation to accept and encourage the United Nations’ controls with a view to the destruction of ABC weapons and to trace the disappeared Kuwaiti citizens. With today’s debate and this new resolution we are seeking to achieve three further objectives. First, we want to address not just the Council and the Commission but also the United Nations Security Council. Secondly, we propose that our Parliament should take the initiative in sending a fact-finding mission on the ground. Thirdly, we reiterate the need for the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the Red Cross to ensure that the most deprived and vulnerable people in Iraq can benefit from the oil for food programme.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his hard work and for the many additions to the Commission's proposals, particularly on health and disease and sustainable transport. However, this was undermined in committee by what Mr Van Velzen has already referred to as the joint result. The proposals on health and transport emerged very much weakened. Our citizens will want to know why we want to spend more on space research than on sustainable transport. It is not their priority. On ethics in biotechnology, the proposals allow funding of research into the alteration of the germline of human beings. This is unacceptable to mainstream science. The have tabled an amendment which is congruent with the position of most researchers in the field and this must be supported. On stem cell research, the production of human embryos for research is unacceptable and it is very unacceptable to most of our citizens as well. The Temporary Committee on Human Genetics has come to very useful conclusions here and its report should have been taken before this debate. However, amendments have been tabled in line with its proposals and these must also be accepted by the House, otherwise we will be in deep conflict with our citizens. As regards GMOs and plant genetics, the proposals that were adopted in committee would put genetically-modified foods on our table and will be forced on European consumers, quite contrary to what many want. This is again a recipe for conflict and it was not in the Commission's proposals. Regarding energy, equivalent funding for renewables and nuclear is required. We have allocated over EUR 1 billion for nuclear funding and nowhere near the equivalent for renewable energy. This again is completely unacceptable to our citizens. If we are not to have a conflict between science and society, which the Commissioner has been very anxious to avoid, we will need to revise these priorities. For example, proposals on fusion are out of date. Both the US and Japan are pulling out of this research completely.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The measures recommended in this report will largely make it possible to prevent the sort of disasters that we have seen, particularly in France with the contaminated blood affair. We cannot avoid thinking about the tragic outcome, which has made such a deep impression on our minds. We must, then, at European level, establish high standards for the quality of blood and for the safety of its collection, we must be strict about storage conditions and traceability, and we must lay down demanding rules for inspection and monitoring. Blood is not an item of merchandise like any other. It is not ‘commercial goods’, and nothing must be allowed to make us depart from that notion. I remain firmly opposed to any commercial use of human blood, and I hope that all Member States will stand firm on the principle of voluntary donation without remuneration. On this subject, subsidiarity applies, but in addition to being a cultural issue it is also a question of ethics, ethics that are shared by many Europeans, and also a scientific issue. In fact, studies have shown that blood collected by voluntary, unpaid donation is of a higher quality. In order to promote such voluntary unpaid donation, Europe should encourage all its Member States to promote this principle and should launch huge information and public-awareness campaigns.

Political group: PPE-DE
I congratulate Mr Mauro on the legislative resolution on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting the European Parliament and Council decision on a multiannual programme (2004-2006) for the effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme). I fully support this resolution, particularly regarding the need to encourage the integration of new information and communication technologies in education and training systems in Europe, thereby improving the quality of those systems and access to them. I would also like to emphasise that I believe the European Parliament’s efforts to increase the overall budget for this multiannual programme to be totally justified. This is the only way to achieve the programme’s objectives and ambitions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I actually wanted to express my regret today that the House did not pronounce itself in favour of any provision for the needs of small businesses from the domains of primary production, processing and marketing in the general principles and requirements of food safety. The traceability of primary products at the processing and marketing stages is of extreme importance to consumers and farmers, and I can only keep re-emphasising this point. Let me suggest, however, that consideration of the relative size of businesses is indispensable and that small businesses cannot be treated in the same way as multinational food corporations. Moreover, I also find it regrettable, Mr President, that there are no derogations from these provisions for farming businesses which produce their own livestock feed. I very much welcome the extended application of the precautionary principle to food and feed imports into the EU as a contribution to better consumer protection.

Political group: PPE-DE