GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I personally considered the decision taken at Gothenburg to incorporate the environmental dimension in the Lisbon process to be crucial. However, I feel somewhat pessimistic about the possibility of the forthcoming Spring Council developing that approach coherently. I will limit myself to mentioning the three main reasons for this pessimism, in the hope, of course, that I will be proved wrong. Firstly, the slow pace of the attempt to place the environmental dimension on a genuinely equal footing with the economic and social dimensions, evidence of which is the fact that only some of the indicators for assessing progress made have been established thus far. Secondly, the excessively closed way in which the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy is being managed, without the European Parliament, or the regional authorities or social partners either, being involved as they should. Thirdly, the delay in the endeavours of the Community institutions, including Parliament, to bring their activities into line with the principle of sustainable development, a principle which allows neither completely separate departments nor overlapping responsibilities. This concept of development is based on the principle of policy integration and therefore requires maximum coordination and cooperation and the creation of joint planning, guidance and monitoring instruments. The reason for all this is fundamental: innovation, research, training, quantity and quality of work and valuing the environment and culture are increasingly becoming elements of the same policy. These requirements are clearly expressed in both the Bullmann report and the motion for a resolution discussed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and they therefore have my full support.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Commissioner, the day before yesterday, there was a leading news item in the most popular Danish news programme, which I would ask you to comment on. The story went that an official in the Commission had apparently told an Austrian businessman that, because he was Austrian, he would possibly be excluded from being able to participate in a scientific development project together with businesses in other countries, including Denmark. I would ask you to confirm that, if an official has said that an Austrian company is in some way excluded from participating in joint development projects, then this official has got the wrong end of the stick, and that, if he has not said this, then there is no story. Will you confirm what is the case?

Political group: ELDR
Mr Verhofstadt, first of all, if I may, I would like to praise what I shall call the Belgian presidency’s clear analysis. I think that there really is a democratic deficit and that we must resist a hard core. I would like, however, if I may, to clarify that I am not thinking of the hard core that Mr Wurtz referred to, but the hard core of excessive bureaucracy, red tape and administrative hassle, which have prevented the public from being able to see clearly what Europe is doing. Stay focused, therefore, on what you have presented. What we must destroy is this Europe which lives by means of paper, by means of an image which does not correspond to what the citizens effectively want. I would like to wish you good luck, because we know full well how demanding your political task is. I shall now come back to three points. The Laeken Declaration must, without question, give more weight, credibility and depth to our diplomatic approach. It is clearly important to transform the current mechanism for international relations in order to gain the means to enable us to intervene, as you have said, in Africa and in other countries, as well as in Maghreb and in events that currently unfolding, particularly in Algeria. We need a stronger diplomatic mechanism. Secondly, as regards the power issue within the European Union itself, do what you have said you would; set a challenge for the debate to clarify the responsibilities of each of the institutions and, possibly, to extend the co-decision procedure in Parliament. My third and final point is that, with reference to the lack of clarity for citizens, I believe that it will be essential to dare to bring up the problem of the European constitution. The people of Europe have to know who wants and who does not want this European constitution, and, finally, after Laeken, the process must be more definite. I wish you good luck and I hope that at the end of the presidency, you will have been able to make progress on most of the points that you highlighted in the presentation on this presidency. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, in taking stock of our achievements in 2003, I think it needs to be said, Mr Vitorino, that we owe you a debt of gratitude not only for 2003, but for the whole five years. Given that we are discussing that today, and that we will soon be reaching the end of this parliamentary term, it is fair to say that we have achieved a great deal working together with you. Not only have we made demands on you as a Commissioner, you have also made demands of us as a Parliament at times. For that reason we can say that we have all achieved a great deal together under the existing arrangements, bearing in mind how difficult it is under those arrangements to really achieve something when you have 15 Member States with 15 different viewpoints. There are, of course, many problems. We have still not really been able to combat people-smuggling. We have not succeeded in stopping the Mafia-like gangs operating in this area, and that is why many victims are still dying. We certainly need to improve police cooperation still further. We need improved international measures in order to be able to deal with this problem more effectively in the countries of origin. But of course we also ultimately need a common immigration policy so that there are no loopholes that criminal gangs of people-smugglers can exploit. We cannot ignore 11 September 2001. Terrorism really is an enormous headache for us. In this area in particular we need to consider how we can take more effective action in future using Europol and Eurojust, and to consider what organisational measures need to be taken here as a matter of urgency. We should not, however, forget that in all these areas data protection and civil rights achievements should not be overlooked. On that note, Commissioner, I would like to express my real gratitude for all you have done up to now.

Political group: PSE
Madam Speaker, I do not see much cause for drama here. I would like to think that we could organise a small debate. It goes without saying that it has not been possible to prepare this matter properly in the groups or at the Conference of Presidents, as the news of this resolution came so late. I really do not think this is much of a crisis; debate is a good thing, but the most important thing is that we get a chance to hear this announcement in the first place.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, a saying is a saying. In no way have I tried to call Mr Galeote a thief. It is a saying which means: everybody believes that others are like them. He has accused us of dishonest conduct, which has never been the case, and he knows that there has been dishonest conduct in his ranks.

Political group: PSE
I just want to say that I strongly oppose the Liese resolution on climate change as it was approved by the Parliament. Nuclear energy has been, is and will be a very important part of decreasing CO2 emissions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I have no comment to make. That was a procedural matter not actually related to the report itself. We should vote.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to start by recalling that only recently, six months ago to be precise, we gathered here, in this Chamber, to address the situation of human rights in Vietnam. I would also like to remind you that there was still some hope that the meeting that took place in April, to which Mr Mann has already referred, between the leaders of the Vietnamese State and the patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), could lead to greater understanding on the part of the State as regards religious freedom. Today, we must clearly accept that these hopes have unfortunately proven to be quite unfounded. The situation has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened from all points of view. The Buddhist patriarch is under house arrest and, what is worse, the pagodas belonging to the Buddhist church have been locked up, in a blatant attack on the most important principle of the Buddhist church. At the same time, the pace of death sentences handed down and of executions carried out by the regime has picked up, and is already more than twice that seen in 2002. Given this situation, I wish to reiterate what has been said here and urge the Commission to make our voice, the voice of the European Union, heard loud and clear in Vietnam in order to ensure that religious freedom and the principles of universal human rights are respected.

Political group: PSE
The generation of independence fighters have belied their own nature. The elections in Zimbabwe were an incredible farce, even by African standards. Mr Mugabe made every effort to stay in power, using extremely brutal means. Nothing was too extreme for the purpose of eliminating his opponents: violence, intimidation, murder, large-scale arrests and accusations of high treason. Election laws were changed at the last minute. There were selectively too few ballot stations, identity cards were seized, the media was not allowed to do its job and the observation of the elections was a joke. Politically blind South African observers made absolute fools of themselves by declaring that the elections had been conducted fairly and freely. Mugabe wants – by hook or by crook – to pursue his ill-fated policy which has led Zimbabwe to the brink of starvation, where 80% of the population live beneath the poverty line and 60% are unemployed. Tougher sanctions must be used in order even further to isolate Mugabe internationally. We should not punish the population for the wrong-doings of its leader. What is the scope for tougher sanctions, according to the Commissioner? What will the Commission propose to the European Council in Barcelona? Unfortunately, democracy in Africa often leaves a great deal to be desired. African solidarity with the dictator Mugabe is sadly a very bad omen. This is why we must focus our political efforts not only on Zimbabwe, but also on the other countries in that region. South Africa receives a great deal of aid from Europe but is unconcerned about the justified criticism levelled at its neighbour. I pity Africa, I pity the population that has to suffer so much at the hands of incompetent, power-crazed and corrupt leaders. When will we finally have a generation of democratic leaders in Africa?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Gutiérrez-Cortines’ report states that the Union administration’s besetting sin – its slow start to getting measures off the ground – afflicted the theme year of lifelong learning. National coordinating bodies suffered from such matters as materials arriving late and there not being enough of them. Furthermore, things moved slowly when it came to using the Internet. That naturally made it hard to implement the theme year programme. Unfortunately, the situation appears to be the same with the Socrates programme 2 that has just started. Messages of concern are coming from national agencies that the agreements between them and the Commission are still not finalised and there is a lack of certainty about payment. This cannot help but be reflected also in the implementation of the adult education component, Grundvik, which forms part of Socrates. That is a pity. The administrative problems associated with Socrates have to be resolved swiftly for the Union’s input into lifelong learning to come within reach of the people. Training and education are being seen more and more clearly as European resources. They do not mean just vital items of expenditure. Hopefully the change in attitudes will also be reflected before long in the Union’s budget. But the Year of European Languages, organised for next year, will have to persevere in the same way, appropriations being as meagre as they were with the Year of Lifelong Learning. Parliament, however, did its best to establish a legal basis in time for the measures to be effected. Although training comes under the principle of subsidiarity, its European dimension is strengthening all the time. European success in global competition is built on skilled and involved people. Lifelong learning is essential in the fight against unemployment and exclusion. It is justifiable that the report adopted by the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport should contain a request to the Commission to apply the notion of further education, not only at the level of advanced know-how and skills and universities, but also in traditional professions, particularly the craftsmen trades. Lifelong learning, as such, is often seen only as a necessary regeneration of the workforce. It should, however, be a fundamental right of every citizen, leading not just to improved professional skills, but also to human growth, happiness and understanding. The facilities modern technology offers for learning can be brought within everybody’s reach. That opportunity must be taken.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, you will be aware that the Regional and Transport Committee has started its deliberations on social and economic cohesion via the second cohesion report and that this report launches the debate on how we face up to the challenges of regional funding and structural policy in an enlarged Europe. However, whilst I am grateful for the Commissioner's statement today, my group is still disappointed with the Commission as it appears that it has not used its right of initiative and has not engaged itself fully on this topic. It raises the question as to what the real proposals of the Commission are. Commissioner Barnier referred to the meeting in May in which many Members participated, but again nothing concrete seems to have come out of that meeting. On our side of the political divide, we recognised at an early stage how sensitive this issue could be and indeed our experience of Agenda 2000 was the catalyst that told us this. But then Commissioner Wulf-Matthies facilitated a common position with Parliament and so we feel that the time is now right for us to start work with the Commission as it becomes more active, positive and decisive. My group has discussed in detail the questions that you have posed. The main points emanating from our discussion revolve around the principle of keeping the concept of social and economic cohesion and its most representative instrument, namely the Cohesion Fund. But a thorough discussion is required on implementing the goals of the cohesion policy before we make any decisions on the future financing of structural aid. At the moment, we are facing a number of great challenges and any discussion on the implementation of Cohesion Fund has to include other areas under the umbrella of sustainable development, such as employment and agriculture. We must continue to ensure that the poorer regions that presently receive structural aid are not mistreated in the future and that Community initiatives, such INTERREG and URBAN, are retained. We also question whether 1.27% of the Community GDP, as was decided on in Agenda 2000, is enough with regard to the new Cohesion Fund. In launching this debate, it is our view that our discussions would have been more fruitful and more meaningful if the Commission had come forward with ideas of its own so that it could act as a facilitator of those discussions. We know that it is an important issue. At the moment, we are left with a series of questionnaires, but we can give the Commissioner a guarantee that our group will be fully involved in discussions in the coming months.

Political group: PSE
On average, women in the EU earn 84% of what a man does, and the average unemployment rate for women in 2001 was 2.3% higher than for men. In the Explanatory Statement, the rapporteur demonstrates incisively that the many fine words about equal opportunities for men and women are, in practice, leading to little action, partly owing to a lack of measurable results. No clear objectives were set beforehand, and the assessment criteria laid down by the European Commission in its Framework Strategy for the period 2001-2005 do not reappear in its Annual Report for 2002. It is thus unclear what has been done or not been done, and what the results are. Furthermore, the Commission and the Council are working independently of each other. During the Finnish Presidency in late 1999, the Council established nine indicators with regard to women in responsible and decision-making jobs, to which were then added French indicators for the reconciliation of work and family life, Belgian indicators for unequal pay and Danish indicators for domestic violence against women. These are all nice things for ministers to tell their grass-roots support back home. No further mention of them is to be found in the annual reports, and the underlying documents remained confidential. It is a shame that the motion for a resolution adopted unanimously in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities lacks the firmness of the clear Explanatory Statement. I fear that, once again, little will change there.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, cohesion is a fundamental pillar of the European Union. In fact, there can be no political cohesion in the European Union without economic and social cohesion, despite what some of the federalists may think. On the other hand, however, there can be no economic and social cohesion without political cohesion, as hard as this may be for some nationalists to swallow. Cohesion policy, which has played a key role in recent years, will have an even more crucial role to play in future, as a result of enlargement. Cohesion policy is really a prerequisite for enlargement’s success. This goes without saying. Nevertheless, Mr President, there are certain paradoxes inherent in enlargement: by making the European Union poorer in terms of average per capita income, we will be making the countries that are currently the least favoured richer as if by some form of numerical magic. This is a problem. What my country, Portugal, and other cohesion countries cannot accept is, as a consequence of enlargement, being relegated to the margins of cohesion policy and becoming the victims of the statistical machinery that automatically places them over the critical threshold of 75%. With this in mind, I feel that future cohesion policy must not stray from the following principles: - firstly: increasing the budgetary resources earmarked for cohesion; we cannot evade this issue, despite what Mr Walter has said; - secondly, guaranteeing that the interests of the current least favoured regions and countries are not touched and that a fair method will be found so that they continue to benefit from the level of support they receive today; - thirdly: a thorough reform of the common agricultural policy and greater protection of the rural world; - fourthly: the definition and implementation of a development strategy for Europe that relieves the congestion from current urban centres, which are dense and concentrated, to the benefit of the whole of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, both I and my Group enthusiastically support Mr Haarder’s human rights report because we have found a very good line in it and there are numerous reasons for doing so. My Group and I do, however, have serious reservations about the Ludford report because numerous political measures are discussed under the banner of the fight against racism and xenophobia which have nothing to do with the analysis and which, of course, have lost nothing by being in this report alongside a wealth of other measures which we shall wholeheartedly support. Allow me to tell you which points we do not accept and why. They are the points which fall outside the stated report period of 1997/98. And when Sarah Ludford says the report refers to the year 2000, then she must be clairvoyant because it has only just begun. Secondly, we are against all the points which fly in the face of the basic principle of solidarity. Mr Nassauer has already pointed out the fact that intervention in the right to hold public office has been called for here. Has the author ever tried to enter public office in Morocco for example? The question of recruitment to public office in a Member State or to the police is exclusively a matter for that Member State. Thirdly, matters are addressed which have no place in this report, such as the voting rights of third country nationals in European elections or local elections. I consider this last point to be very important. As an Austrian, I cannot accept a report which takes exception to my country in a most unqualified and most unjustified manner and which expressly welcomes and supports party-politically motivated action and unjustified boycotting measures by the fourteen. These are actions which, in the final analysis, are directed against young people, the economy, sport and the people of my country, and they have no place in this report. The report does not contain what the title promises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am speaking in my capacity as MEP for northern France, following Mr Van Orden, whose comments regarding the Sangatte Centre rather surprised me. What surprised me, first and foremost, is that he is questioning a court ruling. I did not think that it was customary in the United Kingdom for a political assembly to criticise a decision taken by the courts. What also surprised me is that he is not concerned about the reasons why so many refugees try to enter Great Britain. Lastly, I would like to point out to him, as I know the centre well having visited it many times, that the intention is to humanely manage a situation which, in itself, is not humane and which has arisen due to a lack of harmonised rules on non-European citizens entering and circulating within the European Union. Rather than criticising a decision of a court or a country, I would hope that we will all do what is necessary so that common rules can, at long last, be established in the European Union. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
I shall give my own personal view of the report on forests. I know the Committee on Agriculture tells us that we are having the wrong debate in defending an increase in the budget in the context of these reports. Personally, I consider that we have a political responsibility to send strong political signals to the Commission, the Council and the citizens. In December 1999, part of the European Union was hit by terrible storms which devastated a large proportion of the forests in southern and eastern France and created despair among the victims, in particular small-holders. I also know that we cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. By voting for the rapporteur’s proposals, I wanted to contribute to the implementation of a true forestry policy in the European Union, as despite the vast CAP budget, forests, which are an integral part of agriculture, remain the poor relation.

Political group: Verts-ALE