GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I too would like to compliment Mr Morillon on his good report, and I can say even now that I can support most of the ambitions and the proposals that he has made in it. It has also already been said that the debate is happening at an opportune moment. The war in Iraq has divided Europe. Doubt has therefore been sown, in public opinion too, about the ability of the European Union to speak to the outside world with one voice. Today’s debate about European defence policy therefore comes at a rather strange time. Thinking does not stand still, however, and without new initiatives the damage done cannot be repaired. The European Convention is currently deliberating on the strengthening of the decision-making structures. The Morillon report contains a whole range of practical proposals for improving the defence capability of the EU. We support the expansion of the Petersberg tasks, and this must also include the fight against terrorism. The rapid reaction force must receive more attention. If it wishes to be able to operate truly independently in the future, then the defence industry in Europe will have to be better organised as well. The realisation of all these ambitions would actually provide the European Union with a serviceable military capability. It will not make the European Union a military superpower. Nor is that the intention. In the context of a broad security policy with crisis prevention as a priority, the European Union must be able to deploy several instruments at the same time. A credible military component is part and parcel of such an approach. The war in Iraq has made us more aware of our weaknesses, but that is no reason to change the basic philosophy entirely. If it is a matter of maintaining the international legal order, the European Union must, together with others and within the multilateral frameworks, be able to accept its responsibility. The suggestion of accelerating the development of foreign and security policy with an advance guard of active Member States deserves support. The slowest must no longer be allowed to set the pace. I am however in favour of an open process. Anyone wishing to take part must have the opportunity to do so.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, today I must join with the authors of the joint resolution in standing against the failure to respect human rights in Vietnam. The European Parliament has spoken out many times on this matter, the last time only three months ago, to condemn the violation of the freedom to practice religion. The country, which is still run by a Communist party, still represses, on a daily basis, any group or individual considered to be a threat by those in power. My fellow Members have already said that the freedom of the press, freedom of opinion, religion and association, rights of ownership and the right to vote are flouted. What is also serious is that no international organisation or independent observer is authorised to come and monitor the human rights situation in the country. Let us recall that in April, Vietnam celebrated the 25th anniversary of its reunification. The Vietnamese government, which has signed many international conventions on human rights, had an excellent opportunity on that occasion to reaffirm the commitments it had given in that respect. Vietnam is demanding a place on the international stage and has potentially everything in its favour to become a prosperous country. Reality, unfortunately, shows the situation to be quite different. The Vietnamese people live in poverty, their society is in decline and the country is still under-developed. By signing a partnership and cooperation agreement with the European Union in 1995, Vietnam gave a formal commitment to respect human rights and promote democracy. The joint EC/Vietnam Committee that met in September in Hanoi reconsidered all the aspects of relations with the European Union, including the joint agreement on democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law. I call on Parliament today to give its full support to the European Commission in implementing its partnership strategy in the region. We must all encourage the process of reform in Vietnam. Respect for fundamental freedoms, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience should constitute the basis of sound and constructive cooperation with that country. Health situation in the Republic of Uzbekistan

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I voted for the definition of the “Youth” Community action programme, as agreed in the Conciliation Committee, mainly because it will finance and implement the European voluntary service programme, which has a large number of young people involved in community actions, including the provision of assistance for the elderly. Having said this, I would like to put forward a suggestion for future discussions on the “Youth” project and point out something which concerned me in the vote, although the report was adopted, and that is the definition of the word “youth”. Mr President, do you feel young? I think you are saying that you do. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to establish that “young” means those who are young at heart, and therefore give those who are no longer young in years but who are young at heart the opportunity to take advantage of these services.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, neither the celebrations nor the word 'constitution' can conceal the anti-grass roots essence of the new Treaty, which adds yet another link to the chain binding the peoples post Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. A new Treaty, which comes to safeguard the anti-grass roots, pro-monopoly, imperialist policy of the European Union, which redistributes power in favour of those who are already strong, which intensifies the inequalities between the Member States, which institutionalises neo-liberalism and subjugation to the market, which supplements repressive mechanisms and which promotes the militarisation of the European Union, to the point at which it adopts the doctrine of preventive military action on the pretext of terrorism. Any opposing views expounded at the Intergovernmental Conference are secondary, in that no one disputes militarisation or repression or the handover of sovereignty. The disagreements are confined to about how exactly to redistribute the power. The people do not need a European constitution. They hardly even need a European Union. We are certain that they will react both through referenda, where they are held, because the Greek people have never been asked, nor will they be asked now, and in their daily fight.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, we have registered an amendment to paragraph 41 replacing Macedonia with Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. I hope that this is noted before we hold the final vote.

Political group: PSE
For years, it was a matter of course only to see the benefits of the continual increase in traffic. It was good for individual freedom and good for the economy. Attention was devoted only to promoting traffic safety, so as to restrict the number of fatal accidents. These accidents were considered to be the only drawback. We now know that air pollution and noise also adversely affect many who do not drive very often, that professional drivers suffer from a lack of normal physical activity and that many pedestrians and cyclists become the victims of the increase in motorised traffic. The rapporteur is right to draw attention to this issue, and seeks the solution in the form of a ‘health assessment’ for all transport projects and transport measures. I have backed her in this right from the word go. I regret the fact that she is not being taken entirely seriously, particularly by representatives of the Group of the European People’s Party and , and that this group has claimed that the European Union does not really have a role to play in this area. It is time we did away with the misconception that only the promotion of economic growth and large-scale projects is important. In order to survive in a society that has undergone massive change, mainly due to technical progress, human beings and the environment need more protection. Report Pack (A5-0021/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Zappalà, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to join in the expressions of thanks. If, though, I compare the speeches that have been made here, I have the impression that the ship has come into several different harbours. I would like to share my own image of this harbour with you. Initially, it is true, the Group of the European People’s Party did reject the common position. We take the view, however, that a number of substantial improvements have been achieved in the conciliation process, bringing the compromise more into line with our ideas, so that we can now vote for the outcome at third reading. In my view, these improvements lie primarily in the fact that this compromise proposal has a far more market-oriented focus than was the case even with the common position. The progress on liberalising public procurement through the internal market is maintained and, indeed, built on. We were worried that through the overemphasis on environmental and social criteria, the internal market would be rolled back compared with the position achieved in 1993. Thanks to Mrs Cederschiöld’s inspired leadership, but also due to the very substantial support from the Commission, this threat has been averted, so we can now vote in favour of this compromise result. We have not achieved all that we set out to achieve. The proposal still contains a number of very bureaucratic rules, some highly complex regulations and obscure phrasing. It is therefore not entirely in line with what we wanted in terms of better legislation. Nonetheless, I think it is also a step towards reaching the objectives of the Lisbon strategy, and I am pleased that the Commission in particular has made such a substantial contribution, which we see lacking in the context of some other legislative proposals. I would like to thank everyone for the very positive cooperation. It is nice to be able to finish something that we started in this legislative term, and so we will all breathe a sigh of relief when we leave the Chamber today.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the revolutionary technique of therapeutic cloning echoes to a large extent man’s ancient dreams and myths. Therapeutic cloning opens up a whole new area for human knowledge and medicine. Dogmatic attitudes in this field, particularly those based on the Bible, are therefore pernicious. They demonstrate little concern for the reality of people’s lives. Loyalty to beliefs and to their origins is their raison d’être. We all agree with the universal ban on reproductive cloning but this does not mean that it is a taboo subject and that it should be likened to devil-worship, which is what we are seeing at the moment. Only recently, an extremely eminent French philosopher, Marcel Conche, in a book entitled ‘Confession of a philosopher’, which is a dialogue with André Compte-Sponville, claimed provocatively that the right to be cloned, provided, of course, that it is subject to strict rules is – would you believe – a fundamental right. I do not share this view, but it is a fine exercise in intellectual freedom. Those who would like to ban cloning outright but are unable to achieve this are putting so many obstacles and barriers in its way that research will be completely stifled. We cannot accept such a blatant strategy. Unlike Mr Lisi, I see no good reason for completely excluding Community funding from the Sixth Framework Programme for Research ‘Research using embryonic stem cells’. It should be emphasised that, even today, it is impossible to tell which stem cells, those derived from embryos, from foetuses or adults, best meet the needs of fundamental research and clinical applications. The answers clearly lie in undertaking scientific research and in the freedom given to scientists and researchers.

Political group: PSE
After the expiry of the fisheries agreement with Morocco on 30 November 1999, the Community fleet was left inactive. In view of this situation, the Commission proposed a change to the rules on structural assistance with two objectives: to prolong the period for the granting of compensation for inactivity until 30 June 2001 and to allow the 4% FIFG aid threshold to be exceeded for this type of aid, because of the number of fishermen and shipowners affected by this cessation of activity in Portugal and Spain. In this report, Mrs Fraga Estévez proposes an extension of aid until the end of 2001, which I think is adequate given the uncertainty still surrounding the remote possibility of a renewal of the fisheries agreement and the delays in making available the means needed to cover the high costs of restructuring the Community fleet in the event of non-renewal. Renewal is in fact becoming less and less likely because of the stalemate in the negotiations and the conclusions of the last council of fisheries ministers. For Portugal the situation is highly complicated since about 30 vessels and 600 fishermen are living in this constant uncertainty; therefore the extension of aid, although late, may minimise the consequences of the cessation of activity and even those of a more profound restructuring. I therefore voted for the report. - Report Galeote Quecedo (A5-0199/2001)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, according to Hegel, culture – that is, philosophy – spreads its wings only at the falling of the dusk, but it is getting on for dawn here! In any case, in my capacity as shadow rapporteur for the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport for the Martens report, I would like to start by thanking and congratulating the rapporteur on her work. I am not greatly opposed to any of it and would just like to highlight a few particularly important points. I feel that it is important – as the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy has also pointed out – that this report should address the issue of education not just in terms of professional training, of the development of skills which will increase our citizens’ chances of finding high quality work, but also in terms of more general education, of which school education is part in a wider sense, directing it towards a humanistic culture which – although it does not directly provide professional skills – certainly achieves that task of social cohesion which is our goal. The same may be said of the report’s focus on equal opportunities for all citizens and the possibility that European Community action might remove those gaps, those divergences and distances which, in our society, still divide those who have skills, who have access to a computer and information technology, for example, from those who are still excluded from this world. These are the main principles of the Martens report and I feel that Parliament cannot fail to support them. This is the line taken in both the report’s declarations of principle and its practical recommendations: it focuses especially on the need to root and ground these recommendations in the changes currently taking place in the world of communications and in new teaching methods and, above all, to facilitate the climate and conditions necessary for the need for a higher level of quantity and quality of education for all to be met. In this respect, all the measures seeking to actively involve teachers, students and trainers in the implementation of the programme are vital. The emphasis placed on language learning, on strengthening the ties between the world of work and civil society, on the need to find more attractive images to encourage students and teachers’ learning and mobility must not, however, mask the practical root of the problem: the need for financing which respects the choices of the individual. To this framework we need to add a top priority action plan to assess and intervene with appropriate, effective tools in the tensions which can develop in the worlds of education and work where there are cases of discrimination, with the common desire to fight racism and intolerance. For all these reasons, the Committee on Culture thanks the rapporteur once again for her work and calls upon Parliament to adopt the Martens report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we welcome this report and also the communication from the Commission, but if we are to have a strategy to promote aquaculture, ensuring that it is properly regulated, then we have to be sure that the strategy is well thought through. Aquaculture, like fish catching, has had its problems, from shipwrecks to infectious salmon anaemia (ISA). Scotland may have some examples which can be followed, where, in the wake of ISA, fish farmers have led the way in adhering to an ISA code. This is particularly important considering that there was no EU funding for compensation or vaccination. Effective and enforceable quality assurance schemes too, such as Scottish Quality Salmon, should have a role, and this should be encouraged. Any strategy must ensure that aquaculture is sustainable, competitive and economically viable as an activity, taking into account environmental and social concerns – including the need to prevent escapes and to have a sustainable means of feeding farmed fish – so that a high–quality, safe product is ensured. There must be a resounding 'no' to genetically modified fish. I will vote accordingly this afternoon.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, whilst I would very much like to express thanks to our rapporteur, Mr Lisi, for the report that he has presented, there are two problem areas that I do not want to neglect to mention. Firstly, I thank God that the passengers are not going to have to bear the brunt of the great disputes that I can foresee, on the basis of the current rules, when it comes to defining whether an airline should or should not bear responsibility for a delay. Early this evening, we discussed the Single European Sky. If there are problems with the infrastructure, we are going to have disputes between the airlines, the air traffic controllers and also the companies that manage airports. I hope that we will come up with some workable solutions. Thank God this is not the passengers’ problem, but what I can see coming is that it will be a major problem for us. Secondly, I would like to mention package tours and tour operators. Ever since 1990, these have been covered by a relevant directive, which offers consumers comprehensive protection, and the question arises of whether or not somebody who has booked not merely a flight, but also, and at the same time, a holiday trip, overnight stays or rooms in a hotel, needs additional protection. I take the view that they do not need it, and I am glad that there is support for this position in this House. Having tidied up the rules thirteen years ago, we do not need to add to them now. Let me urge you, Commissioner, to take our experience of this lawmaking process as the basis for getting to grips with the international agreement on delays on railways, which is a disaster in terms of its practical application and is also appallingly badly transposed in the Member States, and to propose European rules for compensation payments when trains are delayed. This is where action is urgently needed!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have just learned that you would probably have been able to speak Letzeburgesh here this morning. In contrast to Welsh and Basque, you would probably not have had to submit your speech beforehand. We would have had it translated for us. I would like to extend warm thanks to Mr Ebner for his initiative in producing this report. Along with Mr Grosch, who has also already spoken, he represents linguistic minorities in the Group of the European People’s Party . I think the South Tyrol and Eastern Belgium are, along with other places, successful examples of how minorities make for enrichment rather than for instability and also build bridges. In Eastern Belgium and the South Tyrol, multilingualism can be heard, and, above all, seen. This visible multilingualism is something we have not yet achieved in this Parliament building, where what we can read is all in one single language. We find nonetheless, in our fifteen Member States and ten candidate countries, which are stable democracies, a repressive reflex towards minorities and their languages, mainly for reasons of history. I want to make it perfectly plain that there are no separatist or extremist languages, but, if anything, only separatist or extremist people, with whom we have to deal by means of policy or the criminal law. That is why linguistic minorities as such cannot be generally suspected of imperilling the unity of the nation by using their language. For this reason, I find it quite incomprehensible that not all Member States have ratified the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Council of Europe’s framework convention on the subject. I would call on those states that have not yet done this to do so. It will not endanger their national unity or territorial integrity. Those who have problems with this leave themselves open to the suspicion that they are very insecure and believe it self-evident that their own language and culture can only be safeguarded by restricting others rather than through their own attractiveness. I would urge a bit more boldness on those who still hesitate.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to start by sincerely thanking Mrs Sandbæk for her splendid effort, defending an important issue, that is women’s freedom over their own bodies, being boss of your own belly as we say in the Netherlands and for emphasising the importance of prevention and education. I would like to raise two points. My first point is of a financial nature. The main problem is that the financing is lagging behind the ICPD objectives, with, in addition to President Bush’s decrease, the fact that 0.7% ODA has not been reached. Taking all those things together, this means that many programmes cannot be implemented. That is why, Commissioner, the financial section in this proposal is immensely important. Now I would like to hear from you whether the Commissioner supports Amendment No 46, which deals with the level of the amount, but also the promise that the budgetary authority will consent. Even more important: does the Council agree with this proposal? We consider it very important that agreement is reached at first reading, and this amendment may put that in jeopardy. A second point concerns the anti-abortion actions being conducted in relation to this issue. There is a lobby group in America screaming blue murder because they say this European regulation promotes abortion. They say it supports the Chinese policy of forced abortion as a means of stemming population growth. It is all nonsense. I want to publicly reject this. Of course we are against the Chinese practice, just as we were against the forced sterilisation of men in India in the time of Mrs Gandhi. The decision to have an abortion must be taken freely by women but not seen as an alternative to proper methods of contraception. Once a woman has taken the difficult decision – and take it from me, it is a very difficult decision – the opportunity has to exist for her to do this in a responsible way, so that she does not have to resort to clandestine abortion, often with dire consequences. The proposal as it now lies before us is also entirely in keeping with the principles adopted in 1994 in Cairo. I eagerly await your response.

Political group: ELDR