GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to emphasise the importance of this report, which underlines the fact that the role of education does not consist merely of preparing young people for employment – even if employment also underpins society and is a means of gauging inclusion and economic and social reproduction. It is generally said that training is about filling in the gaps. The same applies to education. What we really need to do here, therefore, is define what these terms actually mean, which is not happening today. We must, therefore, also discuss the definition of the gaps that we want to fill with our education and training policies. Definitions of this matter are not unanimous; it could even be said that there is a profusion of definitions and that this very profusion reveals our political leanings and the values that we advocate, individually and collectively. To my mind, the greatest challenge of this decade is that of social cohesion. In a world in which everything is going faster and faster and in which speed of movement has become a factor in the generation of wealth, there are increasing numbers of men and women for whom the doors to work, to culture and to knowledge are closed. I would go so far as to say that exclusion is on the increase and that this trend is harming our various strategies for social cohesion, a concept which we are nevertheless fond of in the European Parliament. Consequently, the gap is continually increasing between a growing number of European citizens and what I would call the world of money. This divide illustrates not only the distance between the individual and the market, but also the confusion, the loss of meaning in a collective system within which there are two groups: those who make the rules and those who merely follow them. We must, therefore, urgently discuss the issue of the continuous assessment of the European social model and of the price that we are prepared to pay to produce this social cohesion, this citizenship. In this context, we must do everything we can to ensure that the decision of the Lisbon European Council, confirmed by the Stockholm European Council – which, in strategic terms, places economic growth, better employment and greater social cohesion on an equal footing – becomes a reality for all and that finally, everyone, without a single exception, has access both to the social skills required by citizens and the professional skills required by economic producers. I now call on the Commission to take my suggestion fully into consideration and put in place the necessary policies for social cohesion to no longer be the consequence of other strategies and become a fully-fledged, high-priority approach in order to safeguard public welfare, in other words, the harmonious and dignified development of Europe’s citizens.

Political group: PSE
New technology in European education should not create a fresh divide between the national languages and a privileged language of communication. Europe boasts a collection of relatively small and predominantly monolingual regions. This is not America, where migrants who all live in one and the same community yet speak different languages by origin, need to adopt the official language in order to be able to communicate with one other. In Europe, language differences within one region often reflect differences between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, winners and losers. For centuries, large multicultural states have attempted to impose a different language on their inhabitants. That was the language of the country’s capital, which was also used outside the capital by businesspeople, officials and the military. Whilst the privileged adopted the language protected by the government, workers and farmers continued to speak their own national languages. That is mainly how linguistic conflict started and large states disintegrated. Even today, it is still a requirement for education and government to be in the citizen’s own language in all the regions where the language border does not coincide with the country’s border, or with the internal borders of autonomous regions. If we do not want a young generation to be divided artificially between the privileged and the underprivileged, we need to defend the equality of languages. - Perry report (A5-0302/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, when speaking on Estonia earlier, I praised, in their absence, its former Prime Minister Mart Laar and its Foreign Minister Ilves for their consistent policy of reform at home and, in foreign affairs, their aligning of their country with Europe. Now the two of them are sitting here beside me, so once again, I will express my thanks and appreciation for what they have done. As shadow rapporteur for Lithuania, I was particularly pleased by the high degree of approval – over 91% – in the referendum on accession to the EU, but also by the country’s high level of economic growth in recent years, which alone has made it possible to raise the funding that is needed if the social problems of transformation are to be solved. Lithuania, though, is also a very pertinent example of the continuing tensions between democratic institutions and the Mafia elements that are attempting to exert influence at the very highest levels of the state. Where this is concerned, I have confidence in the independence of Lithuania’s constitutional court; I am also optimistic that the Lithuanian parliament’s investigations with a view to removing the present President from office will produce results commensurate with the requirements of the rule of law. It is perhaps this very point, among others, that I find lacking in Romania, and many speakers, including those who spoke this morning have already addressed this. Perhaps not only the small-time players should be punished, but also the Mister Bigs. In Romania, too, corruption and nepotism go right up to the very top; that is one reason why the country has fallen so far behind, while another is that too few changes of personnel were made after the political change. The revolution was not a complete success. The simple fact is that many of the old structures are still in place – not only at the highest level, but also at others. If the criticism is justified, then it is equally right that we should express our support and our willingness to help, but the main thing is that the work has to be done in the country itself, and sometimes the clearing-out has to start right at the top.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I should like to ask you to put Amendment No 63 to the vote first. It is a compromise amendment from the , Liberal and Green Groups. A new situation has arisen. Now the parties are only required to be represented in a quarter of the Member States. It would be more logical to put this to the vote first and only then the Commission proposal. Before the vote on Amendment No 46:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, just as the Commission and we in Parliament change our methods of working, the former through its White Paper, the Council too must of course change its own methods of working, both in the light of enlargement and because, as many people point out, its present methods do not work so well at present. Mr Poos has much long-standing experience of how the Council operates. I hope that the Council will take his views on board. I assume that this issue will come up at the convention and that, as Mr Verhofstadt said this morning, there will be no taboos. Precisely what shape is to be taken by the Council’s work is not of course something we Liberals have any reason for taking a view on, because it is not our task to regulate these matters. There are nonetheless certain issues in which we think we can become involved. Transparency is one such issue. For us, transparency in the EU’s work is important when it comes to all the institutions. It is a key to winning back people’s confidence in the European project. At present, the Council meets behind closed doors and legislates for millions upon millions of Europeans. That is not acceptable. Everyone talks about this, and everyone criticises it. Very minor reforms take place, but these are not enough. The legislation must be a matter for public debate. A separate department must be formed within the Council in which the ministers meet entirely openly and in public in order to legislate. There must, moreover, be proper Minutes issued afterwards. The members of this legislative Council must of course be politicians, not officials, with clear mandates from their respective governments. Another issue which worries us rather, and which Mr Poos also addressed, is that of all the overhyped ‘mini-summits’ which assume an enormous amount of importance. A great many decisions are made during these meetings of rather doubtful status. We hope that less emphasis will be placed on these meetings and that they will instead be transformed into working meetings. There is an increased tendency in the Council – not so much in the country that at present holds the Presidency, but in many others, especially Sweden – towards intergovernmental activity and a desire to strengthen the Council at Parliament’s and the Commission’s expense. We view this development with great concern, because more intergovernmental activity and more decisions behind closed doors scarcely lead to a more democratic EU.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I would like to express my sympathy to those who were affected. Anyone who has seen the effects of flood damage, as we have in many regions throughout the European Union, will know how devastating it can be, not only to infrastructure but to life and indeed to roads and buildings, as the previous speaker mentioned. But we must also look at the further-reaching effects. People say that floods happen and they cannot be controlled. I want to look further, at the whole situation of climate change, which cannot be overlooked, either in the short or the long term. We must increase our efforts, not only to achieve agreement, but to encourage those who do not and are not prepared to cooperate with the European Union. We saw the effects after Kyoto, with certain large nations deciding not to support the position taken by the European Union. I would urge many of these major nations to support what the European Union is trying to achieve regarding climate change, to improve the situation. We must also make clear that we are prepared to condemn those large nations that believe they can do whatever they want to do, without any thought to the effects on others. It is not only the United States – which is the prime mover in this – there are other countries such as Australia, and countries in Eastern Europe, where this problem needs to be tackled. Their position is deplorable. We must ask the question how long can we continue to allow people to disturb the rainforests and destroy the balance that has existed for so long.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Andria on his excellent work, first of all, and secondly on his political courage in this difficult matter. From the start, in the action plan for the financial market, this matter of clearing and settlement did not receive the attention it deserved and we therefore now need to remedy this omission. Post-market infrastructures do indeed play a fundamental part in the proper conclusion of transactions. You spoke of trust and security. Systemic risks are also inherent in this type of activity which therefore clearly fall within the scope of general interest. On the other hand, these activities have an increasing return. It is for these two reasons that, based on experience, a public interest regulation is vital. We know, however, that these regulations exist at national level, as well as at European level, and fragmented infrastructures and rules predominated until recently. That is why it is time to establish a legislative act in accordance with our objective of building the internal market. We can see, however, that in the absence of appropriate legislation, the current development is biased and dangerous, as bodies are being formed which carry out both clearing and settlement activities and competing banking activities, with no general interest framework and apparently at risk of distorting competition. The rapporteur is therefore quite right, for reasons of both content and experience, to choose a public service line, or, I should say, public utility line, the terms are not important – in the United States they talk about public utility, it amounts to the same thing. Hence the proposals to separate non-profit-making activities from fee systems based on costs. In conclusion, I shall say that now is the time to legislate. I do not understand why we should consult again. We have clear positions from the rapporteur which Parliament should adopt without sugaring the pill in order to achieve a positive line. We believe that the Commission should now, for the sake of the credibility of all our work, prepare the draft directive.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to underline, in my capacity as a member of the Committee on Budgets, that Europe is meant not just to be a payer, but also, and in particular, a player. I believe, in particular, that social conditions in Afghanistan are anything but satisfactory. What matters is that women should be integrated into working life. To do that, you of course need businesses, above all small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms. Do you believe it might be possible for us, by means of our payments, to stimulate such things as the setting-up of businesses?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should also like to say a big thank-you to Mr Sjöstedt for his outstanding work on putting into effect the Catagena Protocol on Biosafety in Europe. Mr Sjöstedt has shown considerable openness and a very great desire to achieve results, but I also think that the Commission and the Council – during both the Danish and Greek Presidencies – have made very positive contributions so that we can now avoid protracted discussion in the Conciliation Committee. We are now obtaining a high level of protection in relation to the rules for the export of GMOs from the EU. I think that the developing countries, in particular, are well protected. They are in the position of being able to exercise genuine choice in connection with the import of GMO products, even though they may of course be thought to be exposed to quite aggressive marketing from parts of industry. By far the majority of Parliament’s amendments have been accepted, and this means we can have the Catagena Protocol put into effect without its wording being weakened for political reasons – on the contrary, with the wording of the protocol being tightened up in certain respects. This means, for example – and I see this as the most important thing of all – that there can be no export of GMOs without the express consent of the country of import. It is not enough that there should be no reaction, and this cannot be interpreted as tacit consent. Express consent is also required, something that I think has been quite crucial in these negotiations. In my opinion, the result makes an important contribution to the overall complex of laws that we shall now soon have on the subject of GMOs and that are designed to protect our health but, above all, to protect biodiversity, even though the ability genetically to manipulate the products of nature has opened the way for doing so. This is, however, a constructive contribution to the overall picture.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as a representative of the European Parliament, I have the honour of participating in a government conference. As the chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, I have been holding frequent discussions – in the Council, in the Commission and in the embassies, with representatives of other countries, some of which are candidates for accession. May I ask for your support and protection, to ensure that Mr Martin cannot portray this activity in the exercise of my mandate as a disadvantage to the public? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to speak on behalf of the committee I chair. Mr Barón has made a statement, an accusation which I believe to be particularly serious. He has said that documents have disappeared in my committee. I would like to say to the Presidency that, if that accusation is false, it is extremely serious since it would seriously harm the prestige and honour of the committee I chair. (Applause) Secondly, Mr President, I would like an explanation of how Mr Barón has received that information, because I was not aware until today that this has happened, and that would also seriously harm the prestige of the services of my committee. I believe that this, Mr President, requires immediate clarification and, in any event, I would ask for the support of the Presidency. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yes, we do want more transport by sea, but not if it is unsafe. As many speakers have already said, this Directive is indeed bad news for dockers, because there are no minimum social standards that are enforceable throughout the EU. In fact, this is a bad example to the world. We as Europeans are always trying to outdo others with our social standards. If this is adopted, however, we shall be promoting negative globalisation and social disintegration. Anyone who thinks that the present text still presents a chance of putting a brake on the downward spiral is mistaken. That will soon become clear, because competition between ports is ruthless. Without strict conditions, self-handling will be the kiss of death for ordinary dockers. This text is bad news for pilots, too. On the contrary, we want more compulsory pilotage. Risks are ever-increasing on account of the shipping routes becoming busier, and also of maritime personnel being less well trained. The Tricolor off the Flemish coast was a chilling example of this. There have also been more than 60 near collisions. There must be more competent pilots on board, therefore. To make savings on this is to make savings on safety, and to play with lives and the environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, our primary duty in the struggle to protect the civilian population, refugees and prisoners of war in Chechnya is to do everything to finally bring the war in Chechnya to an end. This should also be uppermost in the mind of the parliamentary delegation due to travel to the war zone over the coming weeks. Only a political solution to all the issues connected with the conflict and reconstruction of the region will guarantee a change in the awful situation faced by the people in the towns and villages which have been destroyed, in the refugee camps and in the prisoner of war camps. I should also like to warn against judging just one side and apportioning blame solely to the Russian side. It is clear, including from the report by the Council of Europe delegation, that human rights have been violated and war crimes committed by all the warring factions. They must be investigated and the guilty must be called consistently to account. But we should also give the competent Russian authorities the chance to do this themselves.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, sign language interpreter, I would like to express a few thoughts on the World Year of People with Disabilities. I am also speaking on behalf of Mr Mantovani, who is particularly interested in this subject and cannot be here with us today. This a truly vast subject, as can be seen from the statistics: today there are approximately 30 million people suffering from disabilities in the European Union. This means that one European in ten encounters barriers not just in the field of work but also in access to public transport, buildings, private services, education and training – in other words, in all areas of daily life. However, there are other barriers as well, maybe less obvious but just as insurmountable, which restrict the freedom of European citizens with disabilities, such as the barriers to movement within the Union and to going to live in another Member State. All these barriers too often prevent people with disabilities from playing the active role they would like in society, work, school and daily activities. We need a multifaceted strategy to ensure that these people are guaranteed equal opportunities in full respect for the European citizens’ Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, there is one right which stands out above the others: the right to full citizenship. That is why our group, the Group of the European People’s Party will vote with conviction for the proposal for a Council decision on the Year of People with Disabilities – or, as we used to say in Italy in the olden days – people with different abilities – 2003. I therefore thank the rapporteur, Mrs Lynne, for her good work and for accepting the 17 amendments tabled in committee. Three of those were tabled by us, and we feel they are particularly important because they uphold three concepts: firstly, recognition of the importance of the role played by the family at all stages in the lives of people with disabilities; secondly, promotion of a culture of solidarity within society, meaning an understanding that a person’s value is not expressed solely in terms of what he does or is able to do, but primarily in what he represents, namely a human being in all respects; thirdly and lastly, reflection on the concept of the quality of life of a person with disabilities, understood not just to be access to employment or training but also all the other aspects of daily life, in the family and in and as part of society, a quality of life which is genuinely high and equal for people with disabilities too.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this House should not leave unchallenged Mr Coûteaux's comment in this debate about white unity, nor the undoubtedly unintended emphasis on countering terrorism in Islamic states, in paragraph 74 of the resolution. Terrorism presents a threat from all states across the world, irrespective of religion. Racial prejudice undermines security and should play no part in our security policy. Parliament seeks a role to support a stronger and more effective European Union common foreign and security policy, and I congratulate Mr Brok on the strong statements of principle in response to the annual report which he puts before us today. There is the need to strengthen transatlantic relations, to build EU defence capabilities in the context of reinforced cooperation between the EU and NATO and clear advocacy of the principle of multilateralism in international relations. Today I do not want to concentrate on already well-debated differences of view on issues in the resolution arising from the draft EU Constitution – the powers of the foreign minister, communitarisation, qualified majority voting, the creation of a separate EU defence headquarters or a duplicate solidarity clause for mutual defence. But I would stress to all Members that Parliament has already urged Member States to stick as close to the Convention draft as possible, and perhaps that discipline should apply to this House in making further demands now. However, I want to argue that, while supporting the wider Europe and new neighbours initiative, this must not be used to diminish Europe's global reach. In paragraph 8, is West Africa really more vital to the EU's interests than Central or southern Africa? Cannot European diplomacy be as important in resolving potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, as it is – we all dearly hope – in making progress in the Middle East peace process. I have never supported the principle of 'not in my back yard'. I join with colleagues in criticising those who would retreat from global responsibilities in international relations. That must include ensuring the European Union's political support for peace, democracy, human rights and development throughout our interdependent world.

Political group: PSE