GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Whilst recognising the fact that knowing how to read and write is a right for all, the report will be of little help in promoting a policy that can really make a difference in the fight against illiteracy. I feel that the references made to teachers and trainers are only useful if we safeguard a genuine recruitment policy in national education, because this is a public service remit. There are, in effect, tens of thousands of unfilled teaching posts throughout Europe. The recent demonstrations by primary school teachers and parents in the Nantes region against the closure of classes and for the creation of jobs and a limit on class sizes are an illustration of this. Finally, it is the damaging effects of liberal policies – unemployment and attacks against public services – that are the cause of an upsurge in illiteracy. If we are to combat illiteracy, we must also combat poverty. However, as the report does propose a certain number of positive measures such as equal access to fundamental rights for all, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, as well as specific aid to the EU regions most affected by this by this form of social exclusion, I voted for this report. - Hermange report (A5-0004/2002)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Taoiseach, first let me say a few words about Lisbon before I go into the question of external relations. I agree with you and wish you well in your attempt to revitalise the Lisbon Agenda. At the same time, however, I think we need to be aware that Lisbon is not only about economic reform. It also involves investing more in training and further training for individuals. If we expect the European workforce to be more mobile, we must also provide them with a certain amount of stability and social security in return. This is the only way that people will be willing to contribute to the social side of this process of economic modernisation. Let me come on to the subject of external relations, however. My colleague Mr van den Berg has already referred to the critical situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea. We could add Kashmir, another place where the European Union is being asked to support what appears to be limited rapprochement between India and Pakistan. However, I particularly want to focus on the Middle East. I think that it is up to your Presidency, Taoiseach, to seek to do more in order to ensure the European Union has a profile in the Middle East. Unfortunately over the last six months, a great number of opportunities in the area have been missed. In view of this, I would urge you to try everything in order for the association agreement with Syria, which is already almost ready to be signed, might still be concluded. I understand that the Commission has put in some very good work, but the Council or certain Council members have protested and vetoed it. Whatever the particulars may be, I think we need this kind of agreement with Syria so that we can put pressure on her to negotiate with Israel and to further the peace process. I think it is essential that we actually take advantage of the modest signs of an improved relationship between Israel and Syria. More generally speaking, however, rather than simply ignoring this trouble spot, the European Union needs to do more on both sides to drive the peace process forward. Just a little while ago, we did see the Geneva plan, which also caused a certain amount of positive unease in Israel because those in favour of peace now also have something on which to build. To close, let me also add that in a long, very inflammatory piece for Die Zeit newspaper, the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, Avi Primor, called upon the European Union to do more to establish peace in Palestine and Israel. I also ask you, Taoiseach, to do more to involve the European Union in this very important peace process. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, we are debating the subject of buses and the fact that different practices were applied in a number of European countries with permitted lengths ranging from 12 metres to even 15 metres. Apart from anything else, it is useful to harmonise this area as far as possible. The previous speaker mentioned a few beneficial effects this may have in terms of efficiency, safety and the environment. This is exactly where there is room for improvement. Environmental standards are of course being applied to certain modes of transport, in this case road transport. The European standards for trucks spring to mind, which can bring about a shift in the relationship between road and, for example, rail in terms of environmental benefits. It is not always the case, however, not by a long chalk, that these standards are applied. If we consider for a moment the subject of longer buses and the environment, then a situation can arise, as depicted by Mrs Sanders-Ten Holte, of cheaper and more efficient transport where small businesses may have greater earnings in this field and make more profit. However, prices drop which inevitably means that buses are used as an extremely cheap mode of transport, as is very much in evidence at the moment. In other words, I can condone the lengthening of buses based on environmental and other considerations, but there are also a number of side-effects which are being overlooked, in fact, by this directive and which cannot be dealt with here either, but to which we would like draw attention. Giving industry some space to catch up seems justified in my opinion. Three axles, as Mrs Sanders-Ten Holte indicated, are not always necessary, but what is necessary is to draft a sound directive.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Thank you very much, Mr President. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the Laeken Summit is the following: that the Council is able to reverse the trend seen in Nice, that is to say, that we move away from this feeling of failure at the summit that marked the end of the French Presidency a year or so ago, towards a feeling of success at the Laeken summit at political level and for Europe’s citizens. I think that this is what the excellent Leinen and Méndez de Vigo report is calling for. In addition to the details, the concrete proposals, which are, of course, important, the essential thing is to develop a new perspective at Laeken, a constitutional perspective, and this means, without any doubt and as I said before, reversing the current trend. The method for the forthcoming reform is of fundamental importance. As is the Convention. But neither must we let the Convention develop into some kind of tedious rigmarole, and in order for this not to be the case, the Convention should be called in order to prepare reform with true content and a real agenda. If the agenda for the forthcoming reform remains restricted to Declaration 23 annexed to the Treaty of Nice, we will not be getting off to the right start, and the report that this House will, probably, approve tomorrow, calls for more than this. It calls for a more wide-ranging agenda. Above all, it calls for an agenda that, once again, includes the policies of the Union and the institutions that are intended to manage these policies. It also calls for the Union to have its own legal personality. It is for this agenda, and so as not to distract public opinion, that the Convention has to be called. The Convention needs an agenda, but it also needs a mandate, a membership, a working method and a timetable to make it worthwhile. I would like to highlight the words of Mr Méndez de Vigo: it would be incredible to keep the same number of representatives of the European Parliament as in the Convention that had the task of drawing up the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when the total number of participants in the next Convention will increase significantly. This imbalance would, of course, be unacceptable. Secondly, the Convention should work not on the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of majority consensus. I think that this is the exact definition. It should have the right to decide who to choose as President and the right to finish its work on time. This is important in order to ensure that the conclusions of the Convention are not put on ice, because although time, heals all, it also makes us forget. This is the commitment that we ask of Laeken: an ambitious reform with a different method of achieving more Europe and a better Europe. IN THE CHAIR: MRS PLOOIJ-VAN GORSELVice-President

Political group: PSE
Madam President, G8 summits looked like becoming a routine sort of affair. That has now changed and more and more people are recognising that they are moving away from economic and financial issues and beginning to take on the role of a sort of world government. That generates mistrust and encourages rejection. We may bemoan the weaknesses of the UN, but it is accredited by the international community, as is UNCTAD, although UNCTAD appears to be in a state of enforced inertia. By contrast, the G7 or G8 have devised their own mandate, acting purely on the strength of their economic clout or clout in general, in their bid to rule the world. The neoliberal policy promoted as a result widens rather than narrows the gulf between north and south and speeds up the rate at which developing countries fall into poverty and debt. Anyone who criminalises resistance on the part of those who oppose globalisation in general – as has already happened, not that I condone violence – is guilty of hushing things up and confusing cause and effect. We should be looking for alternatives to neoliberal policies, not deploying riot police and cancelling agreements on tourism. What we need is for attention to be paid to our citizens' interests – that is what the European Union should be committing to. We should be safeguarding these interests and making sure there is no room for what is currently happening.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership launched in 1995 has broken down. It is official. The relaunch of this policy announced by the forthcoming French presidency of the European Union bodes well, since the countries in this region have to face extensive and urgent challenges. In order to respond effectively to these, it is crucial that the interests of the peoples around this central sea are truly taken into consideration, and that the people participate actively in the partnership. Let me say from the outset that the time has come to change the course of Euro-Mediterranean policy. First of all, the objective of a policy of this type must be to tackle the blatant disparities between the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, which keep the peoples of the south in an explosive economic and social situation. Poverty, a high level of illiteracy, massive unemployment, particularly among young people, extreme inequalities and an increasing technological deficit compared to Western countries. There are considerable infrastructure needs, not to mention environmental challenges. The effect of this widening gap can only be to increasingly foster the most violent forms of nationalism, fundamentalism and war. Indeed, the weight of foreign debt, the drop in the prices of raw materials and structural adjustment plans have already forced these countries to adopt swingeing austerity programmes and have wrecked their capacity for development. The prospect of a free trade area, a sort of regional MAI, is liable to dangerously exacerbate these power struggles. Studies show that two thirds of Tunisian industry would not survive the opening of frontiers. The slowdown in the process indeed stems as much from the deadlock in the Near-East peace process as from the many concerns expressed increasingly overtly: for instance, the first Euro-Mediterranean trade union conference held a year ago which highlighted the complete absence of the social dimension. There are, however, advantages to establishing things from scratch. Citizens, NGOs and trade unions are committed on a day-to-day basis to supporting solidarity between peoples and to putting many local cooperation projects into practice. The Euro-Mediterranean process thus calls for a pooling of resources which should be advantageous to all concerned in moving towards a common area of prosperity, which was the objective set in Barcelona. There are many possible ways out of the dogma of free trade that was challenged in Seattle. It is more than time to wipe out the debt of the countries of the South, and to engage in technology transfer and cooperation in the areas of training between public services. I should finally like to say that, besides working towards peace in the Middle East, which the European Union must continue to strive for, I am just as keen to seeing Europe play a much more active part in ensuring that the referendum on self-determination in the Western Sahara, which is under serious threat, is held in the conditions stipulated under UN authority. The credibility of European foreign policy is at stake here.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I welcome the improvements being made to the situation of EU citizens who wish to settle in another Member State of the Union, in particular reducing the bureaucracy that currently proliferates. On the basis of the proposal for a directive put forward by the European Commission, it will now be possible for an EU citizen to remain on the territory of another Member State without having to comply with any formalities, for a period of six months and not only three months, which is the current requirement. For stays of more than six months, if a Union citizen is engaged in a gainful activity, he is simply required to make a declaration to that effect. If he is not engaged in a gainful activity, he is obliged to declare that he has sufficient resources and Member States may not fix any threshold for this. He must also take out sickness insurance cover for his first four years of residence. The right to permanent residence at the end of these four years is the major innovation introduced by the directive and consists of the fact that this right is granted to the European citizen and to the members of his/her family. The report makes some positive improvements, widening the concept of the family, eliminating or simplifying some bureaucracy, and guaranteeing more rights than those planned initially. Hence our vote in favour.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I very much welcome the tabling of the Commission's Green Paper on a strategy for the security of energy supply. It is with great regret that I see that yet again too little attention has been paid to renewable sources of energy. We will only achieve the Kyoto target if we give preference to these sources of energy. I am therefore very disappointed at the vote on the Chichester report because here too nuclear energy is still the preferred option.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the European Commission claims that spending more public funds on building additional electricity lines in Europe will enhance competition. There is no academic evidence for this. What do we have to do if we want to reduce oligopolistic tendencies in the European market? Firstly, we must reduce market dominance. We need to bring in measures such as divestiture in those countries where there are dominant operators. Secondly, we must increase centralised electricity production, because that is the only way to make the sector more competitive in the near future. Independent research shows that there is no economic rationale for spending billions on a new electricity grid. I have with me some summaries of these studies and I will hand them over to the Commissioner. So what should we do with the public funds available to us? We should spend them on gas pipelines, because that will bring more competition and security of supply. We should spend money on offshore projects in the North Sea and the Baltic. Historically, this market and the grid which exists in Europe were set up to promote centralised fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. If we want fair competition, we have to use some public money to provide a level playing field for offshore projects. We have enormous potential for this. This should not be a Christmas gift shop. If you look at the annexes to the report, this is a Christmas gift shop with all the electricity lines any operator ever wanted to build in Europe. This is not a good use of European public funds.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like firstly to thank Mr van den Berg for the wonderful report he has presented and I would also like to thank him for having taken up the ideas which, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, I have presented in my opinion report on the central idea that in modern societies civil society is expressed by means of the vote and by means of representative bodies elected by the citizens. This is the central idea which the rapporteur has taken up very well in his main report. Secondly, I believe that significant progress has been made in recent months with the conclusion of an interinstitutional agreement, between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, on the improvement of Community legislation. I believe this is an issue on which we will continue to work, as the Commissioner himself, Mr Fischler, has said. It seems to me essential, however, to point out that there is a mistaken idea that the reduction of Community legislation reduces the total amount of legislation. Nothing could be more wrong, because every time we adopt a Community rule we are simplifying the legislation by replacing 15 pieces of national legislation. And it is not that I am in favour of adopting Community rules just for the sake of it, but, at the moment, we are dealing with a genuine legislative jungle. Only very positive action by the European Union can put an end to the national legislative jungle which prevents the proper functioning of the European institutions and the European market, the internal market, which is one of our objectives. I am not, therefore, one of those people who call on the Commission to legislate less or who propose less legislation. I would ask it to legislate more when it is necessary, because if it does not fulfil its legislative function we will continue with this jungle which, furthermore, can only increase. With 25 Member States each Community rule represents a genuine legislative simplification and the way ahead does not involve a reduction in the Community acquis but in strengthening it and consolidating it. In any event, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr van den Berg. I hope that tomorrow we can approve this report without any great difficulty. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Thank you for that reply, Commissioner. I am very pleased that at least you have taken note of the idea. I suggest that the Commission's reluctance to take any further steps and propose legislation will now encourage businesses across Europe that are rather slapdash about protecting private data, as they will now be able to say that there will not be any legislation to punish them so they can easily let this slip. I fear that our exchange in the Chamber now creates the need for legislation to stop lazy companies from letting private data fall into the wrong hands. Do you agree?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am glad to be able to say, in my capacity as rapporteur on Cyprus, that the Commission’s follow-up report confirms that the country has, to a large extent, aligned itself with the acquis communautaire in most areas. Satisfying though this is, it is overshadowed by the fact that, at the present time, the application of the acquis communautaire is still in abeyance in the occupied sector of the island and that talks between the communities seem at present to have become deadlocked. The fundamental cause underlying this deadlock is the fact that the principal negotiator for the Turkish part of Cyprus, Mr Denktash, is as yet unwilling to concede, or unable to grasp, despite the Annan plan, that Cyprus is an independent and indivisible country. It can join the European Union only subject to the condition that it should adopt a constitution conferring upon it a single international personality and functioning federal institutions. As is, unfortunately, confirmed by his recent statements rejecting the Annan plan, Mr Denktash’s strategy cannot be intended to do other than lead to a breakdown of bilateral negotiations. It is fortunate that the UN plan includes two compensatory mechanisms. The first is the plan for Greece and Turkey to intervene in the bilateral negotiations on 22 March. This will give Turkey the opportunity to remove what is, according to the Commission, a serious obstacle to its own prospective accession, namely the absence of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The referendum on 22 April could provide a second safety net in that, if the majority of Turkish Cypriots vote in favour of the Annan plan and of accession, the ghosts of the past can be banished to the archives of history. The days ahead will be crucial to Cyprus’ future. The European Parliament agrees with Commissioner Verheugen, and can do no other than hope that the people of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish, will seize this historic opportunity.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the purpose of information on the common agricultural policy should be to establish a strategy for communication, directed mainly at those working in farming and rural areas. In our opinion, the main criticism of this proposal for a Commission regulation relates to the opening up of a budget line to non-agricultural organisations and also the reduction in budget appropriations to EUR 4 500 000. This situation has been made even worse by the reserve of appropriations that the Commission is building up for itself, which, when taken in conjunction with specific actions, in fact leaves the organisations with only EUR 3 million, which is obviously a very limited amount. I therefore welcome the rapporteur’s proposal that the Commission should match the budgetary appropriations to the numerous organisations that have a right to funding under this regulation. However, another negative aspect of the Commission’s proposal relates to limiting cofinancing to a rate of 75%, when actions implemented directly by the Commission are financed at a rate of 100%. Furthermore, we know that the draft guide to the rules makes access to the budgetary line I have just mentioned even more difficult for organisations, especially those in a weaker financial position, in other words, exactly the ones that need the most support. Hence the importance of our amendment designed to supplement the concept set out in the report. With our amendment, we hope to see Community cofinancing rise above 75% for organisations representing small farmers and family-run farms in financial difficulty. We hope that this amendment will be adopted. With regard to the amendment designed to reduce funds intended for the Commission by EUR 1 million and instead increase specific actions, we feel that this is potentially a way of improving the Commission’s proposal for a regulation. Lastly, it is important to emphasise the need for the Commission to simplify its administrative procedures both in order to study the programmes presented by the organisations and for their future monitoring.

Political group: GUE-NGL