GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if you think that education is too expensive, ‘try ignorance!’ as Abraham Lincoln said, and this is why I welcome the report by Mrs Van Brempt and the truth and relevance of the ideas she has just put forward. As she has illustrated so well, in our societies, equal opportunities, personal development and the ability to take charge throughout one’s life are dependent upon better access to education and training. This report has the merit of reminding us of the essential issues in lifelong learning. It gives a precise definition of the vulnerable social groups that must have access to this process, namely the illiterate, immigrants, the handicapped, the unemployed and women finishing maternity leave. I wish now to pay tribute to the fine work done by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. Furthermore, this report reflects our societies, which are undergoing enormous changes and in which everyone can change career several times in their lifetime. If this report is rapidly implemented, it will be an opportunity for all men and women who think that progress in society is definitively blocked for them. Certain shortcomings must, nevertheless, be mentioned. Mrs Karamanou has highlighted the disparities between men and women in access to training, but there are genuine shortcomings where the illiterate, immigrants, the handicapped and the long-term unemployed are concerned. The most crucial issue for me, ladies and gentlemen, is funding, because, although the Commission has currently earmarked more than EUR 500 million and will set aside an equivalent sum in 2006, and although the European Investment Bank intends to increase the budget earmarked for this area, the Member States, on the other hand, seem not to want to make any great effort on this matter. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate, on such an important matter, to indulge in penny-pinching or, for example, to restructure already existing programmes, such as Leonardo and Socrates. Finally Commissioner, I am categorically opposed, as I hope you are, to the idea that the price for even a tiny part of this education should be met by those who are precisely in greatest need of it. Let us bear in mind the phrase by Victor Hugo: 'Every school that is opened closes one more prison'. Ladies and gentlemen, let us bear in mind that it is the most vulnerable people who must be concerned by lifelong learning. This gives enormous hope to them all, men and women, and perhaps a last chance too.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I offer my sincerest congratulations to my colleague, Catherine Stihler, for her excellent work, which gives the Council the opportunity to approve a much more balanced plan for these two species. I cannot, however, agree with her desire, as rapporteur, to reinstate hake in this report. As she well knows, I had tabled 13 amendments in committee aimed at softening the measures for hake, and more than half lapsed when the committee adopted the amendment tabled by Mr Varela, which separates the two species. Therefore, if we now approved the report for both species together, it would be highly unbalanced. The Community fisheries policy has to find a balance among the measures on stock conservation, the reasonable adjustment of the fleet to each Member State and the maintenance of economic activity in fishing-dependent regions. It is a complex approach. First of all, because overfishing is not the only cause of stock depletion: the indiscriminate catching of species for fishmeal production interrupts the food chain for cod and hake and to a great extent causes the situation both species are going through. There are certainly highly significant differences between these two fisheries as regards their mortality and growth rates and the conservation measures needed. The situation of cod in the North Sea and off Scotland is different, just as the situation of northern hake off south-western Ireland differs from that off the French coast. Not all species – and this is something we have to say out loud – and not all fishing grounds are in the same state. In this respect, the Committee on Fisheries considered that the hake and cod situations are different, and that hake should have different measures from cod, which should be adopted based on confirmed scientific reports. There is no single, unified and indisputable scientific basis to indicate that the northern hake stock has fallen below the biological safety limit, and there does not seem to be a need for drastic management measures to save this stock. We cannot forget the great economic and social impact that these measures will have on the fishing communities. The Commission has not undertaken any study of these consequences or of those that must be taken into account when the plan is implemented, nor has it shown us an evaluation of the emergency measures it adopted in 2001. It must be remembered too that the TAC for hake was cut by 51% between 1999 and 2001. The European fishing fleet quite reasonably needs to know what prospects there are for this activity. My group is therefore opposed to drastic cuts, which can be brought in over longer periods. We therefore support the rapporteur’s Amendment 8, and once again I sincerely congratulate her on the excellent work she has done.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, item 6 of the Minutes where we modify the agenda for the week is accurate but probably rightly does not mention that voting time on Thursday has been brought forward to 11.30 a.m. because of the large number of amendments tabled to certain reports. I rise, therefore, to question whether Rule 139(1) of our Rules of Procedure is being applied correctly. As you know, we spend an enormous amount of time voting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday lunchtimes. We adopted a set of changes to the Rules of Procedure last year to try to rationalise our work. In these changes we gave every Member the right to table an amendment as an individual at committee stage, but we limited the right to table amendments in plenary to 32 Members or a political group. However, if you look at the amendments that have been tabled on Thursday, for instance to the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report, you will see that there are over 100 amendments which are tabled by individuals, supposedly in the name of their political group, but this may well not be the case. I notice, for instance, that the EPP Group has over 100 amendments in its name but signed by 18 different Members, none of them the coordinator or leader of the group. Over 20 of these amendments are contradictory, so they cannot possibly all be the position of the EPP Group. Some are identical, tabled by different Members; and there is even a case of two identical amendments being tabled by the same Member. Could the EPP Group please get its act together! (Laughter) So much time is spent and wasted on voting as it is and this is a way to get around the rationalisation of the Rules of Procedure we adopted as a Parliament last year. Amendments must either be tabled in the name of 32 Members or in the name of a political group and actually represent the position of that political group, not of the individual who happens to table them in the name of the group so as to circumvent the limitation on tabling rules in plenary. I would ask the sessional services to verify in future that such amendments really are in the name of a group. (Applause from the left)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in my opinion it is vital to make the prevention of drug dependence a main priority in the EU’s internal and external action. That must also be clearly evident from Union acts. The rules will, however, be useless unless they are actually effective. Therefore it is essential to focus both on cooperation between developing and industrialised countries and on networking among the countries of the EU. There is no lack of excellent plans and programmes within the EU. Examples we could mention are the drug prevention group in Finland that operates under the supervision of the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, and the Pompidou Group, a European Council cooperation group on drugs that was established in the 1970s on an initiative by the French President and that is planning several projects to reduce the supply and demand of drugs. Now we also need a strong and clearly expressed political will to render the exchange and comparison of information as efficient as possible. We will not achieve results merely through acts and plans, but it is through practical action that we can maximise the welfare of our people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have nothing much to add in principle to what has already been said. We too shall, of course, be voting in favour of the two reports. What I have to say refers to supplementary and amending budget 1 which, as Mr Ferber has just said, brings Christmas in July for the Council. The Council has the enviable task of being able to claw back and budget EUR 3.2 billion. If only we could attract the same intensive and intense attention and discussion when we discuss the fact that we are looking for 200 million in order to balance the budget next year and finance a task which has a huge effect on Europe, i.e. Kosovo or the Balkans as a whole. The figure under discussion at present is 3.2 billion, i.e. sixteen times that amount, and it will rightly be refunded, on that I have no doubt. The figure of 200 million will then probably be discussed elsewhere. We had this problem last year and we shall no doubt face a similar problem again this year. In terms of order of size, it may perhaps be a little more, but the principle is the same and it is a problem we have to solve. My request to the Council is: bear this in mind, including for the forthcoming negotiations. It would be wonderful of course if we did not have to give back all the money which we are now refunding, if there were an agreement between the Council and Parliament whereby we could retain some of the money for contingencies. That would, of course, enable us to change the whole modus operandi between us in the future. I admit it is a highly unusual proposal, but we should consider the possibility of a reserve for contingencies. I think that would help to defuse individual budget debates. I should like to address another two parts of the supplementary budget. The first is that, thanks to the excellent proposal by our rapporteur Mr Bourlanges, we have indeed managed to provide 20 million for Montenegro, where we have agreed to urgent procedure. However, we must find this 20 million by squeezing the margin dry. We cannot use the 3.2 billion; instead we must squeeze the margin dry. We do not need to be told, as the English say, to put our money where our mouth is, i.e. where it is needed; on the contrary, we are giving the money back and then looking around for spare change in order to perform our duties. I should like to ask the Council to be a little more circumspect in its announcements and promises in the future unless, at the same time, it intends to tell us what we should cross out elsewhere. I can only ask the Council in the present procedure – relating to supplementary budget 1 – not to cause any more problems by withholding its approval. It really would be most welcome for the forthcoming budgetary procedure if the Council could be accommodating here and vote with us. That would be a good sign and could shape the forthcoming budget debates. My request to the Council is: please proceed as I suggest; we shall be more than happy to acknowledge such a procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to hear what the Commissioner has to say about the amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the borders of the developing world are largely a product of European colonial administration. People who wanted to stay together were split up because the areas they lived in were divided up between colonial occupiers. Conversely, people who would have liked to have had an independent state were allotted to large, powerful neighbours who wanted to conquer the areas they lived in. It is becoming difficult to change the way countries are divided up in a peaceful manner, particularly if oil or metals have been found in the ground in such areas. Indonesia is a product of more than three centuries of Dutch colonialism. Five large islands and innumerable small ones were brought together under one administration in order to supply what the nineteenth century author Multatuli called a North Sea robber state with cheap raw materials and commodities. The two areas in which the Indonesian army is now trying to destroy separatist movements, Aceh on Northern Sumatra and West Papua, were the last to be added to the Dutch colonial empire. They were occupied by the Dutch colonial army as late as 1900, and this was preceded by a bloody war in Aceh. The Netherlands had very little interest in the island of New Guinea, which was initially divided between the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain and which was inhabited by Papuans whose way of life had not changed since ancient times, until Indonesia broke away from the Netherlands in the War of Independence. This was the last colonial foothold in Asia at the time. The Netherlands had to cede this territory 40 years ago under pressure from America, which was looking to establish good relations with Indonesia. The promised referendum for the residents about whether or not to join Indonesia never materialised. In 1945 the Netherlands once again tried to divide Indonesia into an independent, densely-populated Java and a number of satellite states in the region linked to the Netherlands. Many Indonesians, and certainly their rulers and their military, still regard the fact that they made this split impossible as a great success. The powerful role of the Indonesian army, which has been guarding minerals and suppressing ethnic minorities for many years, can be explained by this, as can the long-standing occupation of the former Portuguese Timor and an earlier attempt to annex the former British Malaysia. Indonesia’s current problems were caused by Europe and America. It is therefore a good thing that the European Parliament is concerning itself with these wrongs. Unlike in the past, this must not be done through military intervention from outside but through diplomatic, and, if necessary, economic pressure. In order to enable the Indonesian peoples to achieve democracy and self-determination, we must always take these causes and sensitivities on board.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish sincerely to thank Mrs Lynne for the effort she has put into the work on a legally binding UN Convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of disabled people. It is an important issue, and one that we are highlighting here in the European Parliament through campaigning for the Convention to become legally binding and to be accompanied by an efficient supervisory system, in common with the other six UN conventions on human rights. It is important for this Convention to be seen as a way of strengthening the UN’s general work for democracy and human rights around the world. It is also important to emphasise that, if disabled people are given opportunities to live outside institutions, they must be offered sufficient support for doing so successfully. In Sweden, people who would once have resided in institutions for mentally handicapped and/or mentally disabled people now, in large measure, live instead in their own homes, with the result that many of these people are no longer part of a social community and have instead been isolated in their flats or become homeless and out on the streets. That is a tragic lesson for other European countries to take into account. It is also important for there to be a sensible definition of ‘disabled’ as a concept so that it does not lose its real meaning. As a Swedish Christian Democrat, I should like to have seen us in the European Parliament state that the future Convention should include wording concerning the right to life, implying that disabilities should not form a basis for diagnosing foetuses as unviable, for it is absolutely basic to our view of human beings that people with disabilities should not be looked down upon and their human dignity violated. Foetal diagnosis must not be used for screening out people with disabilities. In conclusion, I want to express my pleasure at the fact that this debate is being interpreted as a sign.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as Mr Swoboda stated, Algeria has already seen a great deal of suffering with the continual deaths in the country, more often than not of innocent people, and also with the poverty that is devastating part of the population. Therefore, this catastrophe has only made this situation worse, with more than 600 victims, as has been stated, and with more than 20 000 people who have lost any standard of living they may have had. Also, in this case, the resolution congratulates the European Commission on its speedy reaction, but special emergency aid will probably be necessary. It is true that the European Parliament colegislates the budget with the Council, and, therefore, the result is what we achieve together, I know, but I am filled with sorrow – especially on these afternoons when we have to talk about so many catastrophes – that there is no sufficient budget heading that can be used in such cases, because we always find ourselves having to beg for, or to transfer some money from elsewhere to deal with these tragedies. In the specific case of the resolution, the European Commission has also been asked if it could send experts and technicians to help evaluate the damage and find a way to rebuild what has been destroyed. I know that we ask a great deal of the European Commission, but it is also true to say that the European Parliament is very sensitive to the situation in countries in Central America – as stated previously – as it is with countries in the Mediterranean. We have to ask – and ask ourselves – as was stated the other day in the Committee on Development and Cooperation when talking about the reconstruction of Afghanistan (after having first destroyed it), that that reconstruction should not be the cause of a reduction in the funds available for Mediterranean countries, countries in Latin America and Africa, who also really have great need of them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, there is a mystery. What happened to the Postal Services Directive that was passed on 15 December 1997? There has been a deafening silence from the Commission during the period between then and now. I am sorry it is Commissioner Monti who is here today. I am very fond of him. He is one of the more diligent and hard working commissioners. It is a pity I cannot say the same for some of his other colleagues. There has, over this period, been no real progress on the Postal Services Directive. Commissioner Monti stated that part of the reason for this was the organisation and reallocation of duties. That has only happened recently. For over a year the old Commission could have done some work on this. We really have not progressed very far. However, since Commissioner Monti is here, I would like him to take a message back to Commissioner Bolkestein telling him what the Postal Services Directive was about. It was about gradual liberalisation; it was about a guaranteed universal service at an affordable price; it was about direct mail and cross-border mail remaining in the reserved sector. These issues were fundamental in that report and they should be fundamental in any forthcoming directive. The postal service is not just for Christmas. It is for life. In the area in Scotland I come from it is much more than just a postal service. It is about keeping communities together. The postal service is also the bus service. The postal service is also the social service. The postal service is also the doctor. If we allow the postal services to drift into complete privatisation then we will lose all that and many of our local communities – we were voting earlier on tourism – will lose their tourist trade. We will cut them off. The postal services are important. That message must be taken back from here today. The Commission must listen to it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to welcome Mr Prodi and thank him for his words. I thoroughly regret the fact that the Spanish Prime Minister is not present at this, the final plenary sitting of Parliament under the Spanish Presidency. Next, I would like to say that the six priorities cited by the Spanish Presidency at the beginning of this semester have, in effect, been reduced to two: achieving a fortress Europe and militarising democratic life; and making Europe a police state. In fact, Prime Minister Aznar currently wants to become the chief of police and would also like to achieve a Europe of States which stands in opposition to the Commission and Parliament. Among the proposals he has made for the reform of the Council, I am not sure what I should highlight most: his arrogance or his impertinence. Under the Spanish Presidency, all our problems are worse than six months ago. And Mr Aznar sees himself as permanent President of the European Union. The Irish referendum is neither planned nor completed; nor is enlargement, which is, furthermore, in an even more confused state; nor is the common agricultural policy, nor the common fisheries policy, where he failed to understand the real tension that exists between the northern and southern countries; immigration and asylum are confused with criminality and nothing has been done on the structural funds, on the European budget, on full employment, etc. In fact, there is nothing left of Tampere, Lisbon or Gothenburg. We should ask ourselves what is left of the spirit of these summits. In fact, what is left is a caricature in which José María Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, plays the leading role.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we need to take an important decision today. Does this European Parliament support the ecological principle of manufacturer’s liability, that is to say that cars, once they have reached the end of their lives, are the responsibility of the car manufacturer? No, according to the in Amendment No. 38: car manufacturers and car drivers should split the cost 50/50. It is evident from the packaging directive in which this 50/50 compromise is included that this does not work. Packaging still accounts for a mountain of rubbish in Europe and is a burden upon the environment. Some of the s under the direction of Mr Bernd Lange say: yes, we approve of this principle but we need not implement it until 2010 or 2012 according to Amendment No 45. The common position stipulates 2006. According to the group of the , this gives the car industry ample time to make the necessary preparations. I would therefore urge my colleagues not to support Amendment No 38 of the and Amendment No 45 of some of the s. If car manufacturers need to bear the cost of recycling their cars, they will design these cars in such a way that they can be re-used more easily and more cheaply. The problem of plastic and PVC will then no longer exist in cars and these products will be replaced by plant-based bioplastic. This is ultimately cheaper, also for the consumer. For twenty years, the majority within Parliament has attempted to make European environmental policy greener. Today, this green position is being threatened under pressure from, in particular, the German and French car industries. That is why I urge you to vote against Amendments Nos 38 and 45. We, the Green Group, by and large support the common position.

Political group: Verts-ALE