GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Commissioner, you should not be surprised by the fact that I too am congratulating you on the answer you have given us. The Portuguese Members closely follow everything that happens in Angola and the European Union must pay particular attention to Angola, given that other countries, such as the United States, are extremely interested in Angola’s natural wealth. It would also be rather negligent of the European Union not to view that country with solidarity in mind, which is crucial, but also bearing in mind the interests of the EU itself. I genuinely believe, Commissioner, that the major test of Angola’s situation will be the presidential and legislative elections. These elections will give us an accurate reading of the democratic and civil situation in Angola, and will be decisive. We must therefore pay the utmost attention to them. Lastly, Commissioner, I wish to ask a question on Angola’s intervention in neighbouring countries – because the Angolan Government and its armed forces have indeed been involved in various conflicts in neighbouring countries. Have there been any developments? Has Angola retreated to its borders and stopped intervening actively in the affairs of its neighbours?

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I welcome the Commission’s decision to cancel the debts linked to special loans but, for the situation in the poor countries to improve, I am afraid that it is not enough for the international financial institutions to adopt initiatives to reduce the debt to what is considered a sustainable level. They must have the courage genuinely to cancel the debt completely in order to release resources and make economic and social growth possible in those countries, and debt cancellation must on no account be taken as an excuse to reduce development aid. On the contrary, the principle, established by the United Nations and confirmed by the Brussels European Council last November, of increasing the funds made available to support developing countries to 0.7% of GDP must be converted into a practical commitment, and Europe must proceed in the same way and with the same determination as when it respected the Maastricht parameters and introduced the single currency. We must establish a precise timetable, stages and monitoring systems to ensure that all the Member States of the European Union respect this commitment, and, alongside this initiative, we must introduce an embargo on the sale of all forms of arms, including light weapons. This is clear from the Monterrey Conference too. We need new ways of proceeding: we need to accord the role of the UN due importance and it is right and necessary to extend the G8 to Africa and Latin America, for it is unthinkable that representatives of the countries involved, of the least wealthy countries in the world, should not have a say in decisions affecting them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on behalf of the Socialists I welcome this report which will place serious and proper restrictions on a number of very dangerous substances that are now known to be toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic to human beings. We must push this report through. As regards the critical issue here, which is the extension of this ban to products, the Socialist Group fully supports the second amendment which proposes this idea. We recognise, of course, that further work needs to be done on this question. We must consider these products, the level of risk they present, their contact with human beings and the places where they are used. We believe, however, that this can happen further down in the legislative process. This amendment should be supported so that these discussions can take place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, President of the EIB, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Lipietz, for his excellent report. The European Investment Bank is a non-profit-making body because that is what the Member States’ governments decided, since its mission was not to obtain economic benefits but rather to contribute to the balanced development of the European Community through granting medium and long-term credits and guarantees for investment projects in the poorest regions, thus fostering economic and social cohesion. But if we examine what the prime orientation for EIB funding is, where have the loans granted in 1999 ended up? We see that most have been used to cofinance investments in the four richest Member States (Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy), which received over 60% of the EIB resources supplementing the Community structural funds, while the so-called cohesion countries, that is, the poorest and most needy ones (Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland) got only 26%. Even if I am told that this inequality occurs on account of the populations of these Member States, I believe we have to think about this aspect, since balanced development will not be achieved through proportionality but through solidarity. This will become even more necessary as we proceed with enlargement to include new Member States. Do not let it be said, either, that what is happening is that the less well-off countries do not submit projects to be funded; what is needed is a better policy of information, transparency, aid and monitoring. To that end, it could well begin by facilitating communication with possible applicants, providing for the use of all the languages of the European Union, including regional and minority languages, so that everybody can have access to the European Investment Bank.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, as you – and also my fellow Members – have already said, the issue of elephants will once again be discussed at the forthcoming CITES meeting. If we move elephants back into Appendix I, at the request of India and Kenya, will this be enough to prevent these animals from tragically becoming extinct in some countries of Africa, even though their numbers are on the increase in other countries? Opinions are divided. The MIKE system that has been set up, which is highly sophisticated, has not yet provided, and will not provide, according to a number of specialists, a satisfactory answer. It has, in fact, absorbed a substantial amount of funding which could have been put to better use, had it, for example, been spent on ways to combat poaching or on the training of keepers. Elephants are poached for their ivory and their natural habitat has been considerably altered and reduced. Even if their use is authorised, whatever the precise and restrictive framework that might be decided upon, there is a danger that poaching will once again become widespread and that this, in the long term, will led to elephants becoming extinct in some countries of Africa. The European Union must therefore very firmly reject any unlawful resumption of the trade in ivory. At the same time, what lesson could we have to give the local populations who would levy a reasonable tax on their fauna, when we ourselves, in France for example, are incapable of providing adequate conditions for the survival of bears in the Pyrenees or rare wolves in the Alps? By way of comparison, we welcome the gesture made by Cuba, which has withdrawn its request for the use of turtles and, in parallel, the European Union has a duty to reject the request, submitted by the Cayman Islands to breed green turtles in captivity, which could facilitate the illegal trade in these animals. The desire and the need to safeguard biodiversity on the planet requires the adoption of tough and proactive decisions which must not allow any loophole for traffickers of any kind, whilst enabling the local populations to use their natural resources, including fauna, in a sustainable manner, even if this may sometimes be akin to attempting the impossible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, last time this came before us, i.e. in 1998, Parliament rejected the common position. At that time there was widespread support in the House for the Commission being forced to take this way of reducing regulation in Europe seriously. We in the Group still take this line. I am surprised that Parliament is not now taking the same stand with regard to this very complicated, highly technical and over-detailed proposal. I do not believe it is fair to the voters for Parliament to devote itself to adopting a position on whether the gangway slope should be 12% or 12.5%. This is why I believe it was important to keep to the approach decided by Parliament in 1998. I am concerned that people change tack so quickly in the second reading. This is something which I believe the Commission really must take on board so that we can achieve a better method of creating regulations in Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
This ‘technical’ debate, is reminder to us all that the euro will be here soon, in less than eight months, and that it does not really look today as though the European public, and even companies, are fully prepared for this great ‘upheaval’. People are going to suffer a tremendous shock, but I am not worried about the final outcome. A currency is merely an instrument that will, admittedly, have consequences for a necessary fiscal harmonisation, but which will, above all, only have real meaning within a Europe that has democratic and effective political institutions, so that the currency is a tool that can be used for implementing political decisions. This is why the forthcoming months will be vital for Europe, first of all with the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002, the first new Members to join the Union on 1 January 2003, the European elections in June 2004 and lastly, the ‘definitive’ reform of our institutions by the end of 2004.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, although the Barcelona Process raised hopes and expectations, today we must register disappointment. What yesterday were laudable ambitions, such as calls for an area of shared prosperity, for a balancing of North and South, a commitment to enhancing peace and stability, are now urgent issues. While we all see the need to relaunch the partnership, there is, however, a divergence in the options we favour. The future of the very concept of a partnership lies not in adjusting the needs of these populations to the market forces at work in the North and to our personal ambitions, but instead in ensuring their own development and resolving their urgent issues. I believe, therefore, that Europe should adopt some approach other than simply supporting these countries in establishing the free-trade area that Europe was to set up. Enabling cooperation agreements, particularly through public services, seeking other financial resources, by introducing a Tobin-style tax, for example, and reducing or even writing off debt would give real substance to a fair and useful partnership. This approach would favour North-South relations without the element of domination. The same applies to human rights. Our associations with countries in the Mediterranean region can only be built on trust. We are, therefore, extremely concerned about human rights violations in Tunisia, for example, because the agreements signed by both parties oblige them to respect human rights. The same applies to the European Union’s respect for the rights of all citizens. I am thinking here of the need for a more integrated and more generous approach to migration. It is inhuman and ineffective to advocate the free movement of goods and capital but not of people. Experience shows that closing borders serves only to force immigrants with no identity papers and no rights into the hands of smugglers and other unscrupulous dealers. How can we speak of managing immigration in a more humane manner, how can we hope and pray for further integration, if we do not question its foundations? We must safeguard the freedom of movement of persons and equality in social, economic, cultural and political rights. To sum up, in order to create an area of peace in the Middle East, the European Union needs to take much more direct and resolute action. From now on, the United Nations resolutions must be applied in full, Israel must respect its commitments and we must recognise the Palestinians’ legitimate right to their own state. The same problem – I am about to finish – can be seen in the Western Sahara, where there is a risk that armed conflict will be resumed. Despite all this, the European Union has everything to gain by bringing together all parties, such as associations, local authorities and unions, who are already establishing a different form of partnership.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I am astounded that the Council knows far less about this than the Turkish press. For example, it is a known fact that the relevant committee of the Turkish National Assembly has submitted a bill on parties in which no changes have been made as regards the ban on the word ‘communist’. I also find it hard to understand why the Council does not know that members of the Communist Party of Turkey are being prosecuted, given that 150 members have been arrested and their offices have been raided, all from the day it opened for business. But apart from all that, there were one or two quite specific points in my question, to which I have not received a reply. Does the Council consider that Turkey can be a candidate country, or rather can it become a member of the European Union without first having lifted the ban? I did not receive a reply to this specific question.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President of the Commission, it seems that some of our Member States have been seized by a seven-year itch: it is the irresistible urge to scratch around for the best financial deal for themselves. But in their rush to advance their own interests, the Member States are failing to ask what might constitute the best deal for Europe. Liberal Democrats and Reformers believe that governments should first, as the admirable Mr Colom i Naval has suggested, take a long, hard look at what they have asked the European Union to do, and then give the institutions the resources they need to do the job. Governments should also ruthlessly tackle waste and fraud, most of which occur at national level, and target spending on our priorities to ensure maximum value for money for taxpayers. Britain, France, Germany and three other states have formed an unholy alliance, united only by their zeal to keep down their budget contributions. Even putting aside the wider benefits that the European Union buys, the EU needs a budget consistent with its responsibilities. This year we will integrate ten new Member States. Europe is charged with important new responsibilities abroad, and with the task of keeping us safe from crime and terrorism at home. Reviving growth requires progress on the ambitious reform agenda of Lisbon. Do the six states really expect the EU to do all of this on 1% of Europe's gross national income? With spending set to reach 1.11% of GNI in 2006, a ceiling of 1% in 2007 means not recalibration but cuts. None of these Member States can tell us where the axe will fall. Indeed, I would wager that they cannot even agree among themselves. My warning to Europe's citizens would be caveat emptor: buyer beware! These are the same governments who agreed in 2002 to a 1% annual increase in spending on the common agricultural policy. If Member States demonstrated a real willingness to reform the CAP further, it would be easier to take seriously their calls for parsimony. As it is, we are running this Union on just over 1% of the gross national income of the Member States, when the budget of the Federal Government in the United States is 20% of GNI. We must continue to strive for savings where possible, but also equip the Union to meet the objectives we have set ourselves. My Group believes that the key to better value lies in a modest budget increase, leaving a safe margin for unforeseen expenditure, linked to reform, less waste and more intelligent investment. Not promises of smarter spending from Member States with no will to deliver it. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am rather concerned that I have been looking at a slightly different document from the rest of this Parliament. I very much agree with the Commissioner's views on decoupling and very much support them. It is important to keep it simple, to keep away from partial decoupling and to cut red tape. Let us have total decoupling. It will mean that for once the funding will get down to the farmer and he will receive it. That is perhaps partly behind the Commissioner's principles. One of the problems we have always had in the common agricultural policy is that the funding has gone to multinationals such as supermarkets and not actually got down to the farmers. I must confirm what Mrs Kinnock said about the poorest people not receiving the funding. A statement made in the United Kingdom recently made it clear that British farmers were virtually at the bottom of the table for earnings: they were third from the bottom. So let us hope that the funding reaches some of those people who need it. I have a question for the Council. Does it want reform because of enlargement or because of the WTO? Do not go into bed with the USA, because the USA's farm bill certainly went against the principles that we in the European Union want. The USA has no interest in or concerns about the EU. I have three short questions for the Commissioner, which I hope he may be able to answer, if not today then certainly later on. They concern problems arising from the 2002 reference period in the Commission's report. If national reserves for a single farm payment, i.e. for additional claims, are to be raised from 1% to 3% of the total allocation, where will this come from? The fruit and vegetable problems are great. Where are we going to find funding for such areas as starch potatoes? The Commissioner mentioned this very briefly. I hope he can confirm what he said. Finally, as regards biofuels on set-aside land, I know the Commissioner has changed his views on that. I hope he will keep to that and still reconsider biofuels on set-aside.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I expect I am stating the obvious when I say that education and training are becoming increasingly important in a modern knowledge economy, if we in Europe are to continue to compete with industrialised parts of the world. I shall limit myself to the recommendations contained in my written opinion. Firstly: in education more attention should undoubtedly be paid to training in information technology both for pupils and for teachers. Students deprived of such a preparation run the risk of exclusion from the development of the new economy. We still lag far behind the United States as regards the use of information potential in education and business. Since no less than a quarter of newly created positions in the last decade are related to the information society, we must realise that students require thorough preparation. We must therefore also aim for optimum use of government investment in the use of technology. Secondly: attention has been repeatedly drawn to the need to bring students closer to business in order to train tomorrow’s entrepreneurs. Thirdly: the setting up of many more second-chance schools has become necessary, as the current number is far too low. Two pilot projects are planned for Spain, France and Germany – the large countries – but the Commission says nothing about the other countries. In view of the size of the large countries, five projects would be desirable while for smaller countries, at least two projects should be planned. By increasing the number of pilot projects, it might be possible to make the second-chance schools a more effective tool for strengthening economic and social cohesion and combating social exclusion more successfully. Finally knowledge of languages, one of the principal European aims. Our rapporteur, whom I thank for his report, believes that even knowledge of two languages would be a success. In my opinion, I stated that I should like to go a step further. In order to promote integration and the opportunities for students in the labour market, in my view knowledge of three languages should be regarded as a minimum. Why? Because quite a few Member States have more than one official language. Belgium has three. Learning the official languages of the countries of which the students are citizens is obviously essential for their integration into the work process but an extra language in addition to the official languages is highly desirable. If we look at the most recent survey of knowledge of languages carried out by Eurostat, we see that less than half, only 45%, of citizens of the European Union can conduct a conversation in any but their native language. So there is a great deal of work ahead of us, but that is equally true of the rest of the issues raised in this instructive debate.

Political group: ELDR
There was nothing original about the Brussels summit in comparison with previous summits as regards the anti-grass roots nature of its decisions. We would make particular mention of the new step towards subjugation to the imperialist plans of the USA with the text adopted on trans-Atlantic positions, the further processing of the aggressive 'security' policy in the second Solana document, improved and processed in comparison with the one tabled in Thessaloniki, and the readiness to send the 'Euro-army' to Bosnia-Herzegovina. For the umpteenth time, they congratulate the Turkish Government on its 'reforms' and repeat the wish list for the Cyprus problem to be resolved, without daring to close the accession door to Turkey if it is not. We would further note that the attack on democratic rights has been stepped up, with police and judicial cooperation, common border management and confirmation and specialisation of the Thessaloniki decision to introduce biometric elements into passports. In the economic sector, they confirm their gift to the monopolies in the form of the trans-European networks and promise to improve competitiveness, step up anti-labour reforms and increase the 'adaptability' of companies and workers. The European Parliament resolution, despite stammering out a few reservations about biometric elements, fully welcomes the Council decisions and even goes as far as to express regret that most Member States have failed to transpose the ‘European arrest warrant’ into national legislation. It is for these reasons that we voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I think we should vote. Just one comment if I may: I understand that on various occasions colleagues may want to test the quorum. Would you ask the President to invite the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to consider a change to the Rules so we can check it electronically?

Political group: ELDR