GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
I am in favour of setting up a genuine committee of inquiry to investigate an infringement of fundamental rights by the Echelon interception system. However, I am voting against setting up a temporary committee, which, without a remit for its inquiry, I regard as a sop. If we only set up a temporary committee, the European Parliament will just be viewed as a paper tiger in its endeavours to cast some light on the activities of Echelon. The caution displayed by the major political groups in the EP about investigating Echelon demonstrates that there is no great interest in focusing on secret service activities, as the European public would then be quite justified in asking what the national secret services and so-called ‘defenders of the state’ actually do. Yet this would be even more important because not only are industrial secrets being monitored, but also the private and political activities of people in the EU.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the two rapporteurs. Every year I am shocked at the huge amount of work they have to do. What are my general comments on the budget? It is widely known, also from previous years, that I am a great fan of carrying out what we have agreed as far as possible. We should thus remain committed to the financial perspectives. This year too, there are a number of budgetary items which go beyond these financial perspectives. This is particularly the case in category 4. We should, in my opinion, adopt a flexible stance for once. As far as the necessary expenditure for Afghanistan and the Global Health Fund is concerned, I believe we should use the flexibility instrument and confer with the Council. Whenever I discuss the budget, I cannot help but mention agricultural spending. I have once again tabled a host of amendments, and I hope that if they are approved by the plenary, the Council will be prepared to adopt them. We currently have an FMD investigation committee, which has made a number of recommendations on which you will be able to vote later on this year. However, a number of things are already clear. It is unacceptable for us to slaughter animals on a large scale again in the future, as we have done in the past. This is why I have tabled amendments for developing better vaccines and better testing methods, distinguishing between infected animals and inoculated animals, and so on. Also, in my opinion – which is incidentally universally endorsed – agricultural production should focus on quality. The public, however, should know what quality is. Europe needs to develop its own quality system which is readily recognisable to its customers, and funding has been made available for this purpose, provided the system is effective. Finally, with regard to the cost of controlling animal diseases, I believe that it is unacceptable for us to earmark a relatively small amount in the budget for this purpose every year, while every year it becomes apparent that if a real epidemic were to break out somewhere, it would cost billions. In my view, we need to develop European insurance systems. Finally, I have noticed that cooperation between the Council, the Commission and Parliament has been good to date. I hope that this will continue to be the case in future.

Political group: ELDR
The world would be a safer place without weapons. I am therefore in favour of a code of conduct which renders it impossible to produce and export arms and which results in arms factories switching over to the production of useful commodities. From this perspective, I have read Mr Titley’s proposals and examined to what extent his text contributes to a world of peace without weapons. In general terms, I endorse the small steps forward, even if they do not, by any means, completely lead to the solutions put forward by myself. It is a different matter if such a small step forward puts a spanner in the works when it comes to reaching real solutions. I believe that the choice today is not between complete freedom in the arms trade and this code of conduct. If these were the two options, I would endorse the code of conduct as the lesser of the two evils, the underlying rationale being that something is better than nothing. However, the real choice is between this code of conduct and a complete ban. The code of conduct is based on the assumption that the arms trade will continue to exist and that European arms production must be promoted. The excrescences are being regulated because it is they that draw attention and instil indignation. The issue of the arms trade itself remains out of range. To me, this is a reason not to support the code of conduct.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that we are all agreed that lifelong learning is an important political tool and I would like to thank Mrs Van Brempt for not pulling her punches. Despite all our agreements, despite the fact that we all recognise that training and lifelong learning must be linked to the world of work if they are to yield any returns, we have a problem and there is a vacuum. Training and lifelong learning are based on education, which has huge problems of its own, and training cannot replace a poor education. We have huge inequalities between the Member States in the field of education, as the report acknowledges, and consequently we also have huge vacuums and huge problems in lifelong training. One typical example is that we have yet to reach an agreement on what constitute basic skills in education. Whenever ΟECD statistics are published on the different countries, there is an outcry and there are some countries which find the criteria used hard to accept. Likewise, education systems need to be changed and improved. But what are we, the European Union, doing about it? We try to coordinate but do little else. That, I think, is a huge political shortcoming. What are the Member States doing about their lifelong learning strategy? At least one in two Member States has no specific strategy and a strategy is vital if we are to have economic development, if we are to improve industry and mobility and if we are to improve unemployment programmes. I think that one very important factor would be if the Member States were to set a budget. Similarly, lifelong learning should be able to reach the underprivileged, the unskilled, people who left school early, the unemployed and, of course, immigrants.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like first to apologise to the Commissioner for having been called out of the Chamber while he was speaking. Eighty years ago there was a link between major wars, disasters and a pandemic. No one knows at this stage exactly what will be the nature, and the possible spread, of the SARS disease. It appears to be resistant to treatment by antibiotics, to have a variable development and not necessarily to follow the course one would expect in terms of the vulnerability of the patients concerned. Healthy people are succumbing as fast as, or faster than, the very old and the very young. In these circumstances you, Commissioner, are now facing for the first time on the human front what you have faced three or four times in terms of animal diseases. Most of us in this House, like Mrs Malliori who has just spoken, will be looking now in this grave crisis for the setting-up of something like a rapid alert system bringing together all the preventive measures which the European Union countries can carry out themselves. As Mrs Malliori has just said, if – despite all the tragic possibilities – we can see this as an opportunity to bring closer together in some form of European health centre the process of monitoring and analysing this threat, which is certainly more serious and less known than anything we have seen in recent years, then that at least will mean that some good comes out of this problem. Thanks to the analysis of the data from Asia which have come to the Commissioner so far, we now know sufficient about the nature of the outbreak in Guangdong province last year, and the degree to which that may have gone through a cycle of its own which can now be analysed, to have some idea of how the disease should be captured and isolated here in Western Europe. It looks as though there are a number of peculiarities to this disease and I would hope that, being still relatively free from it, we can analyse in depth the cases that have arrived in the European Union. We are better placed than most to turn this into an epidemic which is curable, and not a pandemic which threatens us all.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as I have only one minute I shall be very brief. The are in favour of restructuring aid because we have an obligation to support restructuring in coal-producing areas so as to provide future prospects for the workers and their families living there. By contrast, we are categorically opposed to providing aid in order to ensure security of supply, because there is a world energy market which is liquid, where prices have not changed for the last twenty years, and where the countries of origin, the United States, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, are stable. It is ridiculous to give millions of euros to subsidise European coal, which is three, five, ten times more expensive, as long as the world market is liquid. If we were to pursue this economic policy in other areas, I believe that that would amount to a return to nationalism and it would mean the end of world trade if each continent were to pursue policies of this kind.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is, of course, vital to assess the phenomenon of services of general interest and the implications thereof for the European citizen. In our view, the basic objective in this connection should be to step up competition in favour of the citizen and to determine the pre-conditions on that basis. The concept of services of general interest should be a matter to be decided upon by the Member States, and subsidiarity should be a keyword in this connection. It is essential to accomplish the internal market in the way it was agreed in Lisbon. That is why, in the interest of the citizen, swift progress should be made with the ongoing liberalisation of postal services, transport, electricity and gas – and water as well, as far as I am concerned. Current liberalisation has contributed greatly to the competitiveness of European businesses and has also benefited the European citizen. Citizens should have a choice, particularly in the case of products which are so important in everyday life. Citizens must be regarded as consumers rather than objects. That is why services of general interest must be provided in a competitive manner everywhere. It is important for a sufficient number of market operators to enter the market, and that is why the same conditions of access must apply to public and private businesses alike. The citizen also benefits from clarity in the field of prices, bills and supplies. In addition, high quality must be delivered. This should, of course, go hand in hand with the correct and prompt handling of complaints. Efficiency, for example with a view to an improved guarantee of supply, should also be on the agenda. Furthermore, the market for other products, such as water, must be opened up so that the citizen can reap the benefits there too. With regard to the drafting of a framework directive, I would prefer to await the Commission position in Laeken. At the moment, we are actually opposed to a framework directive. We must carefully consider whether such a directive is in fact necessary, and we should only draft legislation if it is required. We should not make it more opaque than it already is. On a final note, I should like to thank the rapporteur, including for the consultation he has entered into with all of us. In all honesty, I thought his original proposal was the best and the Commission has since then made every effort to tone things down. Our voting behaviour will therefore be able to hit quite a critical note in that respect.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. – Mr President, firstly I would like to congratulate Mr Harbour on his report and thank him for incorporating into it so many of the viewpoints of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee broadly shares the view of the state of the internal market set out by the Commission in its third annual report. Like the Commission, we regret that in the period covered by the report only about 50% of the target actions have been met. However, we reject the Commission's claim that the Council and Parliament are equally to blame for this failure. The list set out by the Commission itself in the report contains eight examples of where we have failed to meet targets. Six of these clearly lie at the door of the Council, and only two can loosely be blamed on the European Parliament. We therefore call on the Commission, at the Spring Summit, to push the Council to come forward with a clear set of priorities and a timetable for meeting its commitments under the single market programme. The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee welcomes the four headings for target actions set out in the review: modernising markets, improving business conditions, meeting citizens' needs and anticipating enlargement. As far as the modernisation of markets is concerned, we particularly welcome the call to improve the pace of the delivery of the financial services action plan. Financial services are the oil in Europe's economic engine, and we share the Commission's view that a truly integrated financial sector could add between 0.5 and 0.7% annually to EU GDP: a staggering EUR 43 billion per year. Regarding the improvement of business conditions, we particularly welcome the objective aimed at ensuring that, in all Member States, a private limited company can be set up within 18 working days and at a cost of no more than EUR 213. Where meeting citizens' needs is concerned, we welcome the emphasis given to encouraging free movement of labour, particularly through the introduction of a European health card, and the improved mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications. Finally, as far as anticipating enlargement is concerned, we now believe it urgent that the Commission addresses the administrative capacity of the candidate countries to ensure compliance with single market legislation. As the Commissioner himself has said, the creation of the single market and the progress we have made since 1992 is remarkable, but there are no grounds for complacency. We believe that the Commission has set out a practical roadmap for the next 18 months. The Commission will have the support of my committee, and I am sure the whole of the Parliament, in meeting the objectives it has set out.

Political group: PSE
There are two issues in relation to the mid-term reform before us. One is the detail of what is proposed and the other is the timing. Decoupling is a central tenet and is quite revolutionary in itself. While there are risks and benefits, I feel very strongly that partial decoupling proposals pose a far greater risk with no prospect of decrease in regulation. Beware of the various menus on decoupling! Even our colleague Mr Cunha's proposal for decoupling male beef but not sucklers in my country, Ireland, must come with a health warning, as it will collapse the price of calves and weanlings. Beware of partial decoupling proposals! We need to be more market oriented to simplify the burden of regulation and also benefit from the WTO talks. However, I am not convinced on the second point, despite the Commissioner's protestations on many occasions that we have played our WTO cards wisely. Look at what happened in the last GATT round: the EU traded in a principled way our agricultural rights for other non-agricultural areas. We gave market access guarantees which we lived up to in the EU and in return we got no market guarantees. In fact, the US have used 9/11 to introduce the biggest increase in domestic supports in decades while we in the EU limited our production, and they returned to the WTO talks with a clear message of more of the same. Buyer beware! Nothing they have said nor any utterances from Harbinson's mouth leave me with confidence that we are going to benefit from playing our cards up front. In fact, the contrary is the clear message. What is the chance of the import tariffs remaining at around 36% reduction and not closer to the 60% proposed? There is little chance. The jury is out and we are gambling in advance of Cancun with the critical part of Europe's economic policy, the CAP. The Commissioner is living very dangerously and some would say recklessly in the timing of his proposals. Modulation of EUR 5 000 is unacceptable, even with promises of further investment in rural development. Robbing a poor Peter to pay Paul is an inverse Robin Hood policy and is at best perverse. To introduce degressivity to support – at least in Ireland's case – a new dairy com (i.e. common organisation of market), i.e. coupled payments for the milk sector, is illogical, given the gospel of decoupling underpinning the mid-term review. Each country has its own menu of special cases, be they young farmers, disease issues, early farm retirement issues, successor rights and those who invested heavily in the reference years. They must be looked after. We have a duty of care to farmers in the developing world which we can and will discharge in the context of a level world playing field but, as European legislators, our primary duty of care is to our own farmers and to a sustainable future for agriculture in the EU, the largest agricultural producer and the largest economy in the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, unlike Mrs Schroedter, I regard the final result of the Committee's vote on Mr Musotto's report as a success. The report demonstrates, firstly, a balanced assessment of the disparities within the European Union, which continue to be marked, secondly, the challenge thrown down by enlargement, and thirdly, the need for improvements in the area of the EU's structural and cohesion policies. I would very much like to highlight four fundamental points. The first is that there must be no renationalisation of Structural Fund policy. I can save myself the effort of justifying this, as Mr Duin has already done that for me. Secondly, a polycentric model of space would be a sensible approach to counteracting the disparity between the centre and the periphery. Thirdly, there is a need for improved coordination among the Structural Funds as well as of structural policy with the other Community policy areas, especially the common agricultural policy and fiscal and economic policy. Fourthly, consistent application of the bottom-up and partnership principles at every stage – planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation would not only promote closeness to the citizens, but also the subsidiarity principle. What is imperative, quite apart from the need to continue with aid for the underdeveloped regions of the present Member States, is that the soon-to-be Member States of the European Union must enjoy our full solidarity with them, which means the involvement of these countries, with equal rights, in EU structural policy, without allowing the present Member States to fall by the wayside. Serious shortfalls in development make it, in my view, already perfectly clear that even 0.45% of Europe's GDP will not be sufficient to do this. Provision of support and transnational cooperation in the border regions will be of great significance as enlargement takes its course. Justice has not, in my judgement, been adequately done to this in the report. The course for the Structural Funds, with their criteria and indicators for support, must be set in such a way that economic and social cohesion is also reflected in falling unemployment figures. My own country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is setting a bad example in this respect, for unemployment in the ‘Objective 1’ regions is rising dramatically. We have a rate of over 20%, but this figure is, fortunately, not as high in the more developed regions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, protecting animal and plant species which are threatened with extinction is about more than just preserving the natural riches. It is about a battle between civilisation and barbarism. Maintaining bio-diversity is also about more than preventing the extinction of certain animal species, however important these may be, such as elephants and whales. Since the individual species are unable to stand up for themselves, we need to do this for them, at home or elsewhere. This means, for example, that the international transport of tropical animals must be regulated. Even today, there are scandalous cases of abuse, both in legal and illegal transportation. Over-exploitation and misuse cannot be explained by poverty alone. They often involve ruthless traders who only have their own self-interests at heart. Although we may not be aware of it, huge numbers of animals are also the victims of natural disasters and especially wars in Africa. Animals are, by definition, not just there for our amusement. It is only right that a civilised society should give their beastly fate more attention.

Political group: ELDR
Fundamental rights within the EU seem even more important now that we shall be reuniting Eastern and Western Europe in just a few weeks’ time. A common basis of values for the new, enlarged EU is now even more necessary. We want to create a Union, the foundation for which is humanitarianism, tolerance, human dignity and the equal value of human beings. We have chosen to abstain in the vote on partnership and rights for heterosexual and homosexual couples when it comes to adoption within the EU. The Liberal Party has always pushed for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status, to be able to apply for adoption. All adoption decisions should be made on the basis of what is best for the child. We are not, therefore, against the possibility of either heterosexual or homosexual couples being tested for adoption. We are, however, doubtful that this is something that should be decided on at EU level. We are also of the opinion that the issue of euthanasia is something that each individual Member State should be allowed to resolve on its own. We have, however, adopted a position whereby the EU should push for women to have access to safe and legal abortions, essential contraceptives and economically accessible services within reproductive and sexual health and sex education.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and also express the support of my whole Group for his proposals. Commissioner, we think that, although recently timid proposals have been made regarding the possibility of developing vegetable proteins, the Commission tends to insist that this is problematic on the basis of two arguments: the cost and agreements with the United States. It is worth pointing out the close links between cereals and protein crops. The budgetary impact of protein crops is derisory in comparison with that of cereals and, although the United States set out requirements for protein crops, this was in exchange for accepting the high level of support for export refunds on Community cereals. That is to say, protein crops also suffer from the consequences of balances of the CAP, and their cultivation could develop more if support for respective production was balanced out. Also, there should be due evaluation of the benefits of pulses for biological diversity and reducing the use of nitrogenous fertilisers, and their positive effects on soil preservation. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, there are important reasons that we need to take into account: we are currently dependent on imports for 75% of our vegetable protein needs. This is an unacceptable strategic weakness and means that we must accept genetically modified organisms in our food. Ladies and gentlemen, we think that the Commission should begin the work of revising the Blair House agreements.

Political group: GUE-NGL