GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report highlights the many errors and omissions which the action plans contain. First of all, there is the question of partnership, particularly the place given to NGOs. Their opinion has not been sought or has not been taken into consideration. Another error is that questions relating to asylum and those relating to emigration have been dealt with in the same way. It is true that one cannot attack the causes of migratory flows without talking about human rights. I am going to talk about asylum. With some countries Europe is signing agreements which include readmission clauses authorising the deportation of third country nationals without the political, economic and social situation of the individual or the country being taken into account. This clause is a violation of international law. It refutes the principle of not expelling people before considering whether they are being sent back to a safe country. Just how is it possible to believe that people sent back to certain countries will be safely welcomed there when human rights, particularly those of women, are violated on a daily basis in those countries? Just how can we agree to making development aid conditional upon the signature of such agreements? Europe must cease to turn a blind eye. The best solution to reduce the flow of migration is to support development in these countries and support the welfare of these peoples. This means cancelling the debt of developing countries. Cancelling the debt would make it possible to develop educational, social and medical structures, which would directly benefit the population. Moreover, it would be better to improve the host structures for refugees and asylum seekers, who are currently treated as if they were criminals wishing to take advantage of the system. They must be adequately looked after, and, in particular, given access to medical care, social entitlements, and education for children. In conclusion, would it not be more urgent to harmonise our asylum and migration policies and to establish a genuine Community policy on the subject?

Political group: Verts-ALE
I abstained in the vote on the resolution on Cuba. Whilst fully sharing the criticism directed at the current regime as regards its serious violations of human rights, I cannot join in singling out Cuba when things remain the same in dozens of other countries with comparable regimes. It is high time that the Council, the Commission and the Parliament provide a human rights’ policy that is rigorous and uniform, which does not take into consideration the size and geographical location of a country, nor the state of its relations with the European Union or the US.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is true that tonight's debate comes after Monday's Council decision in favour of a European Defence Capabilities Agency but I welcome that decision, as I welcome Mr Queiró's report. I am pleased that the report reaffirms that NATO is the cornerstone of Europe's collective defence, recognising that 11 of our existing EU Member States - 19 in the enlarged EU from next year - are members of both bodies. But if we want the EU to make a serious military contribution to the Petersberg task of peacekeeping and peacemaking, the European security and defence policy needs to be underpinned by a credible ability for EU nations to conduct military operations when NATO as a whole is not engaged. For those who want a greater EU role in global affairs vis-à-vis the United States, it is absolutely right to state that Europe is tied to US support for every military initiative and operation. That is why it is important in this debate to support the creation of a European Defence Agency, an agency that should be primarily focused on developing European military capabilities and establishing a framework for measuring them. Importantly, in the context of tonight's debate it will also have a wider commitment to promote cost-effective procurement and competition. I say to the previous speaker from the British Conservatives, who sees in every action a conspiracy to increase EU competence, that it is in Britain's as well as in Europe's interests to create a truly competitive, internal defence market. British industry has always been one of the most competitive and open. There are many examples, such as the recent A 400 M contract, where simpler and clearer administrative procedures for procurement would have been welcome. I look forward to firms and employment in Britain, including in my region, the east of England, which is the second most defence-dependent in the United Kingdom, benefiting from this opening up of markets. That brings me to my final point. Although tonight's debate focuses on defence equipment industries and procurement, we must not forget the importance of increasing civilian capabilities for the prevention of conflict. The importance of trying to build a sustainable peace also requires serious action on conflict prevention and post-conflict strategy. I am very pleased to see progress on this aspect too and its inclusion in the Council conclusions from Monday.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the issue of low-level sonar and marine life is one that Parliament has debated in the past. It has been discussed in the Committee on Petitions, all sorts of promises have been made and we are due to debate it again this week, but so far we have seen precious little action. Therefore, our Group felt it would be useful for Parliament to take this opportunity to pass a resolution on this issue so that the Council and Commission are unable to forget what Parliament has asked for in the past. We would therefore request that the debate be wound up with a resolution. (Parliament rejected the request) (The order of business was thus established)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner Wallström, I strongly support Mr Wijkman. If we really want to enforce sustainable production, we must think in life cycles and not in individual products. That is why, Commissioner Wallström, we also need a structural framework for the building site. If you look at it now, what we have is a building site with the various building blocks scattered on the ground. We have EMAS, we have eco-labels, and for batteries we have decided on eco-labels again. Then we have limits, then for cars we have enhanced environment-friendly vehicles. We have the public procurement system, but nothing dovetails. Consequently, businessmen and consumers are of course not exactly clear how this integrated production is supposed to benefit them; that is why I can only strongly support Mr Wijkman. We need a framework for the building site so that these building blocks will fit together and a sensible structure will result. Only then, I believe, will we be able to persuade manufacturers to change their production methods and finally have environmentally friendly, sustainable production.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, having first warmly congratulated the rapporteur, I should like on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy to emphasise the importance in this third report on economic and social cohesion of the contribution of industrial policy, especially research and innovation policy. It is obvious that economic and social development, which is now geared to the notion of a knowledge-based economy, depends on overcoming the syndrome of peripherality and making full use of the regional comparative advantage, innovation and research. In order to find their way, the regions need to stop treading the traditional path and focus on the increased economic importance of new branches of industry, such as the eco-industries and cultural industries, which can provide new jobs and, at the same time, overcome geographical limitations. Economic and social cohesion requires new ideas, inventiveness and innovative methods, not just funding.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, first I want to welcome the work Mr Lehne has done and the fact that he took up this whole job again. It is a pity the report took so long. Once again, time is running away with us in politics. It is economics that sets the pace. The reason this feels like a rather eerie debate has less to do with the time of night and even less with the sparsity of Members now present, but more with what is in fact going on. We are talking about a Europe that is supposed to unite, and what do we hear? British lobbyists against this Europe, against any hint of the social model that keeps being paraded in the electoral campaigns. It would be really nice if British Labour obviously we cannot expect anything like that from the Conservatives any more would for once move outside the borders of the City of London. Once upon a time it was said that 'Britain rules the waves', now we hear that 'Britain is drifting away'. Why are we always taken hostage for this little City of London? Why are we not honest enough to say that take-overs will become a major social problem if we do not cushion them? Why do we not dare to stand by what we keep announcing in our campaign speeches? In concrete terms we know that 70% of mergers go wrong. BMW/Rover was a disaster. Daimler/Chrysler is visibly becoming a crime, when we look at what is going on there. Does Mr Lehne's report go far enough? No, but I do believe it is a first step in a certain direction. I personally and I wish that for once the same would apply to British Labour too will support the amendments that lead to more regulation. We do not want to see American conditions here at home. We do not need them. The European economy is doing very well. In the United Kingdom the social differences are widening ever further. We need this for insider deals, for cartel law. Does might come before right? That is the question. But the answer is that the Lehne report is at least a small step towards empowering the people of Europe.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees is most grateful to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for enabling us, with Mr Gahrton's report, to focus in more detail on the South Caucasus region in this debate today. This region on Europe's periphery draws on a wealth of cultural and Christian traditions. It is Europe's gateway to Asia. With the troika initiative and the visit to South Caucasus, the European Union has sent out encouraging signals, but things are moving far too slowly. What is especially alarming, as far as south-east Europe is concerned, is that Russia suspects that al-Qaeda fighters may have taken refuge in Georgia and has announced that it will expand its action throughout Georgia. Georgia, on the other hand, is hoping for support from the US, which is already responding. But where does this leave Europe? We have already discussed the aftermath of 11 September in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and expressed concerns about the difficulties which might arise if the situation in the region escalates. Unfortunately, it seems that our concerns are justified, for events have now taken a truly dramatic turn. In recent centuries, South Caucasus has constantly been riven by conflict. Surely, in 2002, it must be possible to stabilise these regions at last and give the people there a future and the chance to live their lives in peace and with some measure of lasting prosperity in their home territories. All three countries are striving to establish democratic structures and assert their independence from their over-mighty neighbours. Yet if we consider that Russian troops are still present in two of these countries, and that while Azerbaijan has been liberated, one third of its territory is effectively out-of-bounds across Armenia, these are issues which are not only of concern to the local population, but could also unleash a new wave of aggression. I therefore address my comments to the Commissioner in particular: oil could undoubtedly become a key issue here, and I wish that as well as America and Russia asserting their interests, the Europeans – in the countries which still count as Europe – would not only take action but would also ensure that stable development takes place in these countries. After all, they are trying to establish democracies, but it is a difficult process. If corruption and crime gain the upper hand here, life for ordinary people will become intolerable. I think that as Europeans, we face an enormous task: to respond as quickly as we can and do our utmost to play a positive role in this conflict in order to give these countries a future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are concerned with the interim reform of the CAP for three major sectors that are particularly important to the Mediterranean area. I shall focus on olive oil. In this regard, the proposal contains an unequivocal reference to the need to maintain the farmers’ quality of life and standard of living. It also refers to the need to combat fraud and guarantee a high quality product. I should like to point out that there is a considerable difference in the production of olive oil, depending on the area concerned. The yield can vary between 200 kg and 400 kg per hectare in some regions to over 800 kg per hectare in others. Consequently, aid should not be restricted solely to aid for production. Commissioner, there has been frequent mention of the multi-functional role of agriculture. Olive oil production is no exception. In disadvantaged areas, it enables farmers to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. It ensures that the population stays on the land. These areas would otherwise suffer from depopulation and all the ensuing problems. Decoupling could provide a further incentive. In my view, Member States should be able to offer all olive oil producers assurance and security on the basis of the hectares under cultivation, regardless of the amount of oil produced.

Political group: ELDR
Because the British experience of liberalisation has generally been a positive one, albeit one with unequal benefits for consumers and the economy, the EPLP concurs with the general approach of the Commission. However, the EPLP believes there is a need for universality of service and for the protection of workers' rights and other social, environmental and economic benefits, both at the individual and the collective level. To this end the EPLP has voted to support those amendments which focused on those areas. Rather than a framework directive as called for by the rapporteur, the EPLP believes these issues should be decided on a sector-by-sector basis. The EPLP does not want to halt liberalisation, nor does it wish to prejudice competition laws and regulations. These are necessary in order for market reform to complete the single market and to achieve the Lisbon goals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to bring in an oral amendment to item 21. I shall state the justification for it at the outset. The text, as it now stands, could give the impression that farmers wanted to enter the margin, that is, the EUR 20 billion, as such under the second pillar. That is, however, not the intention; rather, it is intended that we should use the agricultural budget to put the reform on a sound financial footing by redistributing from the first pillar to the second. In order to dispel this misunderstanding, I submit the following oral amendment: ‘takes the view that the Commission proposals are not to be implemented under the current Interinstitutional Agreement and that a revision of the Financial Perspective is necessary with a view to reallocating part of the funds from the first pillar to the second’, followed by the additional phrase: ‘this bearing in mind the fact that the Community budget as a whole remains far below the upper limit for revenue’. I hope this will prove to be acceptable. (Over 32 Members rose and thus the amendment was not taken into account) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution (B5-0567/2002)(2) on the financing of the nuclear sector in North Korea in the context of the nuclear programme After paragraph 1

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to say a few words to the effect that, in my opinion, the Duhamel report is a truly excellent document, which makes quite substantial progress. In fact, I wish it went even further and explicitly discussed a constitution and not merely a framework treaty, a type of treaty, a single treaty or a treaty of treaties, which nevertheless incorporates the Declaration of Fundamental Rights. I concede, however, that the political situation has not been conducive to going that far and I therefore give my unreserved support to the Duhamel report currently before us. At the same time, there is one point I would like to highlight. I do not think it is right that we should call for or move towards the requirement for a compulsory referendum in every Member State to approve the specific amendments that have been proposed. In Portugal, for example, we did not hold a referendum to approve our membership of the European Community or to approve the Maastricht Treaty. These issues were approved by Parliament, in the context of effective representative democracy. I fail to see why we should force all Member States to hold referendums, regardless of whether these form part of their traditions or not. That is my only reservation. In any case, I warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Duhamel, on his excellent work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Theato on the report which I supported in the Committee on Budgetary Control and which I also expect to support in this plenum. I would like to place the report within its context and point out that we are talking about establishing the European Parliament’s position in relation to the Commission’s Green Paper on the European financial prosecutor. By means of this publication, the Commission intends to establish an extremely broad debate on all the issues relating to this figure and this has led it to include certain points which, if this were a legislative draft, would be considered crude, with gaps, and questionable in many respects. The Green Paper, however, can be summed up in the idea, the intellectual hypothesis, that the defence of Community, and therefore cross-border, financial interests can perhaps be better defended by a figure also at Community level in this same field. The rapporteur’s work is conditional upon this structure and therefore has to respond to the most significant issues in the Green Paper and also glean from that supplementary and premature information the essential notion, which is to achieve the legal basis necessary to continue a careful analysis. There are two topical reasons why this treatment and the approval of this report are advisable. On the one hand, the current Convention and the next intergovernmental conference which will establish the future of Community law and, on the other hand, the imminent incorporation of the new members which, on entering, should be faced with a legal basis which would allow them to be involved in the collective work of creating, when appropriate, the figure of European financial prosecutor.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are facing an absurdity, a paradox. We are discussing the legality and legitimacy of products originating from entities, the settlements, which international law considers to be illegal. Established by military force in occupied territories, the withdrawal from which the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, and practically the entire international community consider to be essential in order to create a viable Palestinian State able to live in peace alongside the State of Israel. With regard to the issue on which this debate is based, achieving correct application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement, I do not mind what is done nor how it is done and I do not mind what law is applied nor how. But it must be made clear that Israel cannot continue to unilaterally apply the Association Agreement to settlements which must disappear in order for peace to be possible. To allow this to continue in a unilateral fashion would be another absurdity, an insult, a humiliation which this Parliament at least must combat. This is not the time, and nor do I have the time, to once again condemn the Sharon Government’s lack of political will to achieve peace. It is sufficient at this point to insist on the issue which we are dealing with this morning, and that is that the Israeli Government cannot issue proof of origin to products which, in accordance with Community law, are not eligible for preferential treatment as a result of originating from the colonies established in the occupied Palestinian territories. We must remember once again the Commission’s clear statement of 10 May 2001 that exports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, within the framework of preferential treatment, are violations of the commercial agreements between the Community and Israel. If only for tactical reasons, it would do no harm to remember that on 10 April 2002 this Parliament approved a resolution on the Middle East, paragraph 8 of which calls on the Commission and the Council to suspend the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between Israel and the European Community. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, it is clear to me that we could easily have turned the 150 pages of the White Paper on the Commission’s transport policy into a 300-page vision. Procedurally, we in the European Parliament are bound by this report. I did not envy the rapporteur. He had to integrate, reflect and summarise the different views on transport that are held in this House to enable the European Commission to derive a clear view or position. A clear report on such a broad topic with its challenging title ‘for 2010’ seemed a huge task. I was glad to be involved in the preparation with the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs to create the outlines of a vision that the European Commission can go on. I am satisfied with the outlines and I believe we can move forward. Sections to quicken liberal hearts are those in the area of infrastructure charging, the passing on of external costs of the different modes of transport, the relative separation of economic growth and transport growth, greater attention to multimodal transport developments and attention to inland navigation. What I want is articulated wonderfully well and I am pleased with Mr Izquierdo’s contribution. Before I get bogged down in the Commission’s details, I should like to make further mention of the Commission’s methodology and also its objective in its White Paper. The methodology of cross-taxation with a view to transferring the pressure away from road transport to the other modes of transport must not be allowed to lead to distortion of competition in the transport market. What I want to say is that each mode of transport has its own comparative benefits, and this is what we must focus on in the first instance. I can see good opportunities in the future for rail and inland navigation, but also for coastal navigation. In short, I was pleased that Mrs de Palacio was also so positive about inland navigation this afternoon and I hope that there is sufficient attention to multimodal interchanges and quality with the use of ICT.

Political group: ELDR