GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, may I start by paying Mr Solana a huge compliment? Since he has taken office, the second pillar has been a hive of activity. The agenda is enormous. In actual fact, all EU political issues are dominated by foreign affairs and the Finnish Presidency is certainly taking great strides forwards. This is, in fact, worth two compliments if one considers the country’s historical neutrality. I would like to discuss European security policy and put a number of issues before Mr Solana, a number of questions which he may not be able to deal with today but which should be given priority in future, to my mind. First of all, I back the EU’s ambitions in this field. The European security and defence identity should and shall emerge. I will not enlarge upon the military aspect, the structure and the capacity required, but I would like to be informed of the extent of the so-called Petersberg Tasks because the answer to this question will determine a great deal. Does the Union focus on minor or major crises? And if it focuses on minor crisis situations, what happens if a minor crisis escalates into a major one – because we all know that this is not unusual. According to the Washington Declaration, the European security and defence identity is open to all NATO countries. How does this relate to the EU’s ambition to be able to take unilateral decisions? What is to be done about the NATO countries which are not within the EU, namely Norway, Turkey and the three countries in Central and Eastern Europe? Many would like to know what will happen after your appointment as Secretary-General of the Western European Union. How can the WEU be fully integrated into the EU and what will then happen with the infamous article 5? Although some people in the Netherlands would like to take over the British role when it comes to desperately hanging on to the Atlantic relationship, and I mean the former British role, this is surely not comparable with the issues at large in neutral, non-aligned EU Member States regarding the European security and defence identity. I can respect this opinion. But how can such respect be compatible with a progressive agenda when it comes to the European security and defence identity? I know from my own experience that a broader approach to security and making conflict prevention a priority can be helpful here. The Union could make headway on this score by improving coordination between the first and second pillars. I would like to finish off with a pertinent question. I think that we all, but also you, the Council and the Commission, should be concerned about how Parliament can monitor the system which we are developing. I would like to discuss within Parliament, but also with you, the way in which we could, from within this Parliament, but also from within national parliaments, better monitor the coming into being of the European security and defence identity and the further elaboration thereof.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is extremely positive and gratifying that the Commission – as my fellow Members have already recognised in today’s debate – contributed to the World Summit on the Information Society and that it will continue to make a major contribution on this issue. This is especially gratifying given that in other areas – let me cite some examples from my sphere of interest: the Alpine Convention – has mystifyingly absolved itself of much of its responsibility and has thus contributed to the stasis and paralysis of this initiative. Hopefully, the Commission will reconsider its position here. On the issue of the information society, I believe that the right to network access should not only be understood as facilitating access. It should also mean promoting access, especially in outlying regions, in regions with a geographical disadvantage, that is, also in mountainous regions. The population here, which is at a disadvantage from the outset – in terms of the type of settlement, the distribution of settlements, and their remote location – should also have the opportunity to gain network access under preferential conditions. That means that a differentiated approach must be taken to the conurbations, on the one hand, and the sparsely populated regions, on the other. I would like to draw your attention to an initiative adopted by the Free State of Bavaria some years ago. This was a very interesting campaign and initiative which aimed to open up opportunities across the board. Unfortunately, these opportunities were considered to violate competition rules. However, I think that a rather more lenient approach should be adopted to the issue of competition if there are objective criteria necessitating other solutions. I think that the information society must undoubtedly take greater account of various other issues, such as data protection, privacy and certainly the protection of intellectual property as well. These are aspects that have not been considered to an adequate extent in the past due to the novel character of the medium. I hope that this ground can be made up in practice as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Having listened, Mr President, to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday and Mr Solana and Mr Patten today, it seems to me that they are engaged in a painful struggle to keep their options for war open while, at the same time, entertaining what can only be described as downright opposition on the part of our citizens to the prospect of war. The European Union’s famous common position is basically a manifesto for war; that much is clear from the fact that Blair has signed it. If the European Union were against war with Iraq, it would exercise its veto in the Security Council. Its Member States would not be sending frigates to the Gulf and would not be accommodating US demands. They would be abiding by the principle of the UN, which precludes military action except in self-defence, which does not apply here. The European Union is therefore merely stalling for time so that it can finish haggling with the USA for control of Iraq’s oil fields. This is what this is really about, if the truth be told. If Iraq had no black gold, frankly no one would give a damn. Its supposed weapons of mass destruction are just a pretext. There are countries in the world, such as India, Pakistan and Israel, that possess weapons of mass destruction, and there are countries, like the USA, that produce and sell and use them. We Communists have no time for Saddam Hussein’s bloody dictatorship. We have a score to settle with him because our thousands of Iraqi comrades were his first victims. However, whether or not he should remain in power is a question only the Iraqi people can answer and it is our duty to offer them active political solidarity. Just as in the last war and during the embargo on Iraq, this war will have disastrous consequences for the long-suffering Iraqi people. And as things now stand, it will have dramatic consequences – including economic consequences – closer to home. What we must call for, therefore, is for this criminal war to be averted at all costs, with or without a UN resolution. Yes to the peaceful resolution of international problems. No to any move to accommodate the sabre-rattling president of the United States acting as the mouthpiece of multinational interests. We must express our solidarity with the American people, more and more of whom are raising their voices in protest against this war.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We chose to vote against Amendments Nos 1-28, 30-39 and 40-43 to the Commission proposals and against the report as a whole. We would like to see modern European agriculture in line with the common agricultural policy reforms. We consider the Commission proposal to be a step toward reaching the goals relating to the Union’s agricultural policy. We support a radical reform of agricultural policy with the decoupling of agricultural aid as the main goal. We therefore support the Commission proposal. To support the wording of Parliament’s report would be to take a large step backwards in the work to reform European agriculture since Parliament’s wording promotes continued direct aid and production-linked aid to far too great an extent. The aim of the EU’s agricultural policy is to grant farmers greater freedom to produce what the market demands, which would lead to production being adapted to the consumer. This is particularly important from an international perspective in order not to render competition on the European market more difficult for the developing countries with their agricultural products. For us, these are important principles that must be taken into consideration in the Union’s agricultural policy.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner Nielson, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I think, it is only proper to thank the manufacturers of sporting goods for providing the least developed countries with employment, wages and taxes. That there is room for improvement here is not a matter of dispute. My belief is that we should concentrate on commending, and publicly encouraging, those who adhere to the ILO's rules. We should call them in front of the curtain and congratulate them on maintaining standards. We should be showing them how best practice works even in the least developed countries; such incentive systems would, I believe, be the best way in which we could help promote economic activity in these countries. We stress the importance of acknowledging and integrating the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, and also especially family firms as suppliers, and of encouraging that both internationally and globally by means of objective and proper invitations to tender.

Political group: PPE-DE
In proposing 250 inter-university European Masters with a quality label (‘Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses’) and with the support of the European Union; in awarding scholarships for 4 200 postgraduate students from third countries; or, again, in offering scholarships for 1 000 scholars invited from third countries to Europe, the stakes have been set high, and the budget should be commensurate with these. If, clearly, the budget made available for this new instrument must not in any way put a strain on the budgets for the existing programmes, it remains no less the case that the budgets initially provided for by the Commission (EUR 200 million) and by the Council (EUR 180 million) are far too niggardly to give full scope to this new instrument of exchange and cooperation within the field of higher education. Now, the stakes are high. It is, in fact, a question not only of forging closer links between the European universities but also of boosting the competitiveness of higher education provision by making it more attractive to students and teachers in the rest of the world. The linguistic stakes cannot be ignored. It is a question of emphasising both the importance of the EU’s linguistic diversity and the need for third-country students to know at least two EU languages.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, since everyone has been so polite in thanking one another, I should also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Karas, who has certainly made efforts in the first, and now also in the second, reading to reach a compromise in the committee and in plenary. I would also back this compromise that has been reached if, under the leadership either of the rapporteur or of a delegation from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, it were to be introduced into plenary immediately following negotiations with the Commission. In those circumstances, I would support it. A submitted compromise, or a wording presented by the Commission, has a history to it, however, and such compromises or wordings seem to me to be matters of dispute within the ECOFIN Council where, according to what I have been told, one or other of the Member States was, in the end, quite prepared to use another veto. From the time of the Green Paper up until now when the second reading is imminent, the directive has had several names. The name of the directive really does not matter now, however. What matters, rather, is the content. Allow me therefore again to extract a couple of items from one of the Commission’s or, as the case may be, Commissioner Bolkestein’s proposals, for example from the proposal, as they put it, in expectation of reaching retirement age, which legitimises also those payments made before arrival at retirement age. What this has to do with pension payments, you will first need to explain to me again. When it comes to the biometric risks, there is clearly no European solution, particularly not in terms of guaranteeing the amounts paid in. That means that the entire capital market risk has been transferred to the policyholders, which is to say to the employees, and that is something I am unable to accept. There is no justification for saying, as has already been implied once here in Parliament, ‘Give me your money; trust me; I shall invest it and, if it disappears, that is your bad luck’. I am particularly perturbed by the fact that, in the compromise proposal, the Commission has removed the policyholders’ obligation, upon request, to provide information about their current pension rights. I do not think that what we have here is a good compromise, and I should have liked us to have had the opportunity of a conciliation procedure with a view to arriving in the end at a sensible European regulation.

Political group: PSE
Whilst it is said that employment is one of Europe’s ambitions, the primacy of monetary policies, and in particular the Stability Pact, prevents us, regrettably, from prioritising jobs. In fact, the opposite is true; all we have are statements of intent to please the public. Where, indeed, are the practical measures to achieve full employment, to improve job quality and productivity and to enhance social cohesion and integration? Unemployment continues to rise in the European Union – by 1.5 million between 2002 and 2003. The number of multinational company relocations continues to rise, a phenomenon, which, in Portugal, has already led to thousands of job losses. Poverty and social exclusion continue to rise. Social inequality continues to rise, caused by liberalisation and privatisation, which have speeded up following the adoption of the Lisbon Strategy, especially in Portugal. Against this backdrop, we could not vote in favour of this report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, those of us who represent the Stateless nations of Europe passionately denounce the latest aggression which, at this turn of the century, is being committed by the Russian army in an abusive manner against the small country of Chechnya. Russia is causing destruction, and the death of civilians – including old people, women and children – as well as an exodus which exceeds that of Kosovo. All of this because a new Rasputin wants to gain popularity in Russia and take power as a new President, and to this end he thinks nothing of seriously endangering democracy, the Rule of Law and the economic reforms of the Russian Federation. We cannot accept it and therefore we condemn it outright.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I would like to ask the President-in-Office of the Council whether he is in favour of women being treated as individuals, for the purposes of visas and asylum requests in the European Union, without having to be dependent on a husband or guardian. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, are you in favour of our treating women asking for a visa or for asylum as people in their own right? I would appreciate an answer, one I hope will be yes.

Political group: PSE
First of all I should like to thank both our rapporteur from the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mrs Brigitte Langenhagen, and also the whole of that Committee, for the high-quality work that they have submitted to us and also for the fact that they have strongly emphasised both the advantages and the difficulties that could result from the implementation of the GALILEO satellite navigation programme. Let us remember, briefly, that the GALILEO satellite navigation programme is an ambitious project which provides for the deployment of an arrangement of satellites in orbit at a distance of about 20 000 km from the Earth, linked to a network of ground control stations. This definition shows us how important it is to vote in favour of this report, as I shall be doing. The implementation of the GALILEO project will enable us to have world coverage which can be used not only for controlling air, sea and road traffic but also for supporting search and rescue operations. However, although it is necessary, for the above-mentioned reasons, to vote in favour of the report, thereby allowing the EU to develop a system which the European Council in Stockholm considered was important enough to be launched ‘without delay’, we should do so while bearing in mind those areas – highlighted in the report – which may prove to be problematical in future. It is, in fact, extremely important that we should remain vigilant regarding the possibility of such a system being used for military purposes. It is possible that the system might be misused, and it is up to us to be aware of this and to ensure that such a thing cannot happen. In addition, it should be noted that the immediate funding of such a project will not be without its problems. Member States, or at least some of them, are reluctant to lend their financial support to the implementation of GALILEO, and private investors do not seem to be particularly enthusiastic about the idea of participating in such a project either. In other words, before coming to a final decision, the budgetary authorities of the European Union need to have an accurate understanding of the financing involved, which means that the Commission will have to prepare proposals for the management structures for the GALILEO project. (Speech shortened under Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my compliments, in particular, to Mrs Hermange for her initiative in taking up one of the elements of the new strategy on combating social exclusion and poverty such as illiteracy, which I feel is a genuine barrier to the exercising of fundamental human rights, the rights of all citizens. The idea that functional illiteracy affects over 10% of the European Union’s population is horrifying, to say the least, in a developed society in which Europe is pursuing ambitious goals such as those set by the Lisbon Council: firstly, the need for every citizen to have the necessary skills to be able to live and work in the new information society; and secondly, to make Europe the most competitive, dynamic economy in the world. I feel that we must approach the debate on illiteracy, or rather the problem itself, with great vigour, taking this approach and with these goals before us. The resolution focuses on certain points which I would like to mention briefly: firstly, knowing how to read and write is a fundamental right which must be guaranteed to all people; secondly, combating illiteracy is essential because it secures and strengthens the freedom of the individual; thirdly, the task of combating this disturbing situation must be undertaken by society as a whole and by public authorities and administrations in particular; fourthly, ‘returning’ illiteracy, which particularly affects elderly people, especially those in danger of social exclusion – who, as they lose their self-sufficiency, are obliged to live in sheltered accommodation, leaving their family and socio-cultural environment behind them for good – is a scourge which must be combated. Therefore, governments should promote an incisive initiative through Community programmes, while it is up to you, Commissioner – and, as we know, you are very aware of the problem – to honour the undertaking to address this issue.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, just as the rapporteur points out, biotechnology offers enormous opportunities for good. That is probably most obvious of all within the medical sphere, but there are also opportunities in a number of other fields. However, biotechnology also raises a series of new and very difficult issues to which we must respond. These include ethical issues within the medical sphere, environmental and consumer issues in connection with the cultivation of genetically modified crops and global issues of justice in connection with patent rights and the dominance of the industry by large multinational corporations. These issues must be taken very seriously if a credible overall policy is to be drawn up in this area. The opinion of the Committee on the Environment indicates some key areas. Patent law must respect the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity which establishes developing countries' – indeed, all countries' – right to their genetic heritage. There must be strong, independent and open public research in the field so that there is also research into areas which are not of immediate commercial interest and into the problems and risks posed by the technology. There must also be public control of the research. As far as the controversial issue of the cultivation of genetically modified crops is concerned, it has to be appreciated that the adoption of Directive 90/220/EEC does not mean that there is at present adequate legislation in this area. We still do not have the necessary regulations on labelling, traceability and responsibility. Such regulations must be a precondition for considering whether to embark upon the large-scale commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops. Furthermore, we would point out the risks of genetic confidentiality not being respected and of genetic profiling being misused, for example to refuse people jobs or insurance. That would lead, of course, to an increase in social inequality. We think it crucial that problems of this kind, too, should also be clarified, precisely so that the positive potential of biotechnology can be developed.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to say a big thank you to the rapporteur, Mr Schmid, and also to Mr von Boetticher and to the committee chairman, Mr Coelho. You have all carried out important work. ECHELON proved to be less extensive than we had believed, and the issue has now been somewhat defused. The ECHELON debate has nonetheless helped increase awareness of these issues, something which was vital. Interception and military espionage are phenomena which we shall not be able to abolish, or which we even wish to abolish, as long as terrorism and threats to the EU and its citizens exist. The issue for the future concerning the way in which total security systems are to be developed without violating fundamental principles has advanced a stage. There is no proof that the United States has damaged global competitiveness by spreading information about companies. However, the report shows the need we have to develop security and encryption. I particularly welcome the clear opposition to bribes. As a Swede, I feel that is an extremely good development. Obviously, cooperation at EU level on this issue involves having national control stations in accordance with the network proposed. The committee’s work on ECHELON helped bring us closer together, thanks to the very special qualities of the rapporteur, Mr Schmid.

Political group: PPE-DE