GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to congratulate our colleague Mrs De Sarnez on her excellent work on an issue of such great importance to all Europeans. I am saying nothing new when I tell you that education does not fall within the competence of the Community. Furthermore, in the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, of which I am a member, each time we talk about education issues, one of our colleagues takes note of how many times the word ‘subsidiarity’ comes up in the debate. However, one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens is the free movement of persons, a right denied to European citizens insofar as there is no recognition of qualifications that enables citizens to go and work in another EU country. At this very moment, the large number of students on the Erasmus programme who spend a whole year studying in another Member State come back to find that this year abroad has been a waste of time, because it is not recognised in their country of origin. This is a totally unacceptable situation, all the more so because, when faced with this situation, many of these students, instead of going to another EU Member State, prefer to go to the United States or to Canada and spend a year there to master the language. I believe that we should avoid this situation by improving conditions within the European Union. It is very important for students to have the opportunity to spend a year outside their own countries, for the opportunity to live alongside other EU citizens, for the training that this experience provides and for the opportunity this offers them to learn and perfect another European language, which is so important for us as EU citizens. For these reasons, I would like to express my support for Mrs De Sarnez in her call for the creation of a European university label, for improved international student mobility, the promotion of further language learning and, above all, for the harmonisation of higher education that will, without a doubt, have to lead to the recognition of qualifications.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not possible to ignore, today, the fortuitous coincidence of the second reading of this proposed directive against maritime pollution with the topical news of the tragic wreck of the Erika. Admittedly, this text does not discuss accidental pollution, but we know full well that the implications of illegal degassing at sea are no less serious, even if it is a more insidious phenomenon. In the last week of February, 39 instances of illegal degassing were identified in the vicinity of the wreck of the Erika alone. Such practices are intolerable, but they are difficult to monitor, particularly at night or in foggy weather. The proposed directive and the amendment proposing to establish a standard charging scheme for vessels in ports, in all European ports, in order to finance the processing of shipboard waste, tackle the problem on two fronts: they force the ports to set up the facilities and the organisation to handle the shipboard operational waste, either under direct state control or by subcontracting to specialised competent operators, and, more importantly, they deter vessels from evading their obligation to dispose of waste since they will have to pay the price in any case. It is, however, essential to ensure that, as far as possible, this universal charge is shared across the board and is supported by national or European financial arrangements to enable smaller ports to gain access to waste processing services without their economic viability and thus their continuity suffering unduly. Subject to this condition, then, what this directive proposes is Europe’s initial model response to the legitimate feeling aroused due to the pollution caused by the wreck of the Erika. To some extent, it marks the official acknowledgement and establishment of a European maritime area subject to shared regulations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in the past few weeks the escalating violence in Bangladesh has reached new heights. In October alone, around 40 000 soldiers were deployed in 'Operation Clean Heart' on the pretext of fighting rising levels of crime and private gun ownership. Several thousand people were arrested. We know from reliable, independent sources that this military operation, ordered by the Islamist Government in Bangladesh, was directed primarily at the regime's critics. Among those arrested were opposition members of the Bangladeshi Parliament, including the former minister, Mr Chowdhury. Leaders of unpopular NGOs were also arrested. The army units carried them off without any legal authority. Most of the suspects are either Hindus themselves or Hindu sympathisers. This minority has however lived peacefully alongside the Muslim majority for decades. The growing, and radical, Islamicisation of society and its political leaders is making everyday life increasingly difficult. Those in custody are cut off from the outside world. Many are being tortured. Hundreds of injured detainees had to receive hospital treatment. In the last month alone there were 25 deaths. The army's claim that they had all died of heart attacks is cynical. This action is contemptuous of humankind and in violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Group's position is clear: we call on the Bangladeshi Government to return to the rule of law, pluralism and parliamentary democracy. The imprisoned members of parliament and other innocent detainees must be released. I agree with Mr van den Bos: an independent body needs to be set up to investigate the arrests, ill-treatment and killings. Only then will Bangladesh be able to recover the necessary internal stability. The European Union must also make its contribution, Commissioner Monti. In our motion, we have cross-party support for calling on the Commission to send observers to Bangladesh, and this should be done before there is further discrimination and persecution. The agreement between the European Union and Bangladesh is based on consistent respect for human rights and on democratic principles. Should these continue to be violated to the same degree then we will have to bring political pressure to bear and that means suspending our Cooperation Agreement. Such important signals are easily understood throughout Asia as well as in other countries. We in the SAARC Delegation can give many examples to confirm this. We therefore hope that those responsible in Bangladesh will see reason and that they will do so because of the severe pressure that can be put on them within the SAARC. Only then will our respectable counterparts in Bangladesh be taken seriously at international level. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Although this report contains some positive aspects in terms of its intentions, it also makes some misguided proposals, which arise from a largely economic view of the system. For example, although its recommendation for a single course of initial study is to be welcomed, this course must be guaranteed not to be made excessively short on the pretext of meeting the needs for courses that will make students rapidly 'employable'. These courses would be cheaper but it would be students and families, once again, funding the system, with students paying once they have graduated. The fact is that, with regard to what is known as the Bologna process, which contains this and other proposals, on the basis of the Bologna declaration of 1999, which was reiterated and developed in Prague in 2001, a distinction must be made, on the basis of the objectives underlying the entire process, between the official line and the practices that are taking place. Despite the statements to the contrary, the set of measures that we have already seen, some of which are already underway, suggest an attempt to cut costs by the Member States in higher education, as is happening in Portugal. We therefore wish to stress our opposition to attempts to commercialise knowledge, to reduce the role of public higher education, to make structural changes to the social function of higher education and to its organisational structures and to attempts by the ruling classes to hijack the contents and objectives of education for ideological reasons.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, regarding the conclusions of the European Council, I would like to take the liberty of emphasising three points. What we expect in response to terrorism, and after the tragedy at Madrid, is determination and effectiveness. Whilst we are satisfied that a coordinator for the fight against terrorism has been appointed, it is still necessary that he should be able to be effective. I wonder, therefore, about the powers he will have. We are demanding more efficiency for Europol and Eurojust, just as we can only regret that certain countries have not yet given their opinion on the European arrest warrant. Mr President-in-Office, this will have to be settled if things are to change, because, in Madrid, it was not Spain that was attacked, but all of Europe. These events lead us to ask the question: what do we want to make of Europe? A simple market, a free trade zone, or a genuine, united political Europe? Europe is a boat that is moving forward, it is not being built on fear, but on ambition and will. The time for hesitation is past. We need more Europe, we need a constitution as soon as possible, because Europe must propose a contract of trust to the Europeans. Finally, our political action must be coherent, effective, and sustainable. Priority must be given to economic and social issues; we need to re-establish economic prosperity in order to resolve the social question. Our immediate objective should be economic prosperity, on which employment depends, and which is the sole source of social progress. It cannot be invented or decreed; achieving it depends on the space left to the creators of wealth. The thread running through all our policies should be a refusal to discourage the spirit of enterprise, which means that it is necessary to tackle even more resolutely the brakes that are preventing this change of outlook. Returning to economic prosperity by an increased freedom of enterprise is a desirable priority, but it cannot be continued if it is not accompanied by a new social contract based on clear partnerships and a modern trade unionism, more interested in reform than in entrenching its own status or defending vested interests. In view of the confusion of some of our fellow citizens, the action of reform can be understood only if it appears to be benefiting the greatest number and putting an end to injustice. This is how we will get our fellow citizens involved in the European project. IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENIVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have already voted once on this report. Now, at second reading stage, all we have to do is find a solution to the opt-in/opt-out problem. I will therefore be speaking only about that. Looking at the various proposals currently before Parliament reveals, in my opinion, that they are different kinds of opt-out proposals. Only the Commission's document would mean a real opting-in. This means, then, that only the Commission's proposal would guarantee that citizens would themselves be able to say that they wanted ‘spamming’, that is to say, to receive electronic advertising, or that they wanted to have the option of consistently refusing it. All other options, that is, the various proposed opt-outs, do not, in my judgment, guarantee this. So I cannot be greatly satisfied with what is offered here as a compromise, and I believe that, to live up to the title of this proposal, a text with some bearing on data protection would have to be passed, in which case you have no option but to take the Commission's line, support this proposal, and reject the other proposals that have been submitted to Parliament. Nevertheless, I am in fundamental agreement with much of this report and find many of the points addressed in it sensible. But that was voted on at the last session. Now, it is just about the opting out and opting in. I think that, if we are talking in terms of data protection, we have to support the Commission's proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I should like to draw Members' attention to a very disturbing recent report by Amnesty International. Amnesty International is an organisation that Parliament has used on many occasions to highlight human rights abuses around the world. The rogue states that Amnesty International points the finger at have always dismissed the reports by Amnesty International and it is very alarming that in this case the same thing is happening again. The report in question is the report on the war in Kosovo. Amnesty International has found that NATO was in breach of many international laws as regards human rights. It is extremely important that the Member States do not dismiss Amnesty International's report, because its reports have always been balanced, they have always highlighted any human rights abuses that are occurring, irrespective of how the report will be received. Javier Solana, who is now head of CFSP within the European Union, was Secretary-General of NATO at the time and because of this gross abuse of human rights, Parliament has to take Amnesty International's report seriously. We cannot allow NATO or any other organisation around the world to abuse human rights, to ignore international law and to kill innocent civilians. This is not acceptable.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This proposed amendment of Directive 88/77/EEC is based on the Auto-Oil programme concluded by the European Commission in 1996. In this context, Parliament has already had occasion to adopt proposed amendments to a number of directives addressing the technical improvement of engines and fuel quality. I would not like us to lose sight of the strategy behind the Auto-Oil programme: the objective is to reduce pollution of the atmosphere connected with vehicle emissions. At the second reading stage, it is important for Parliament to clearly distinguish between the elements which it considers a priority and the rest. Some might think, perhaps, that it is obvious. However, the second reading of a text, referred under the codecision procedure, is all too often an opportunity to enter into a game of one-upmanship against the Council. This temptation must be avoided at all cost, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the European Parliament is in danger of losing sight of the general objective of the proposal before it. Next, if it makes the text less clear, it is weakening its position. Finally, it loses its credibility with the people and those directly concerned. In presenting his reasons, the rapporteur explains that the amendments adopted at the first reading by the European Parliament have made a significant contribution towards improving the initial Commission proposal. He specifies that the Council has, in its common position, taken on board some of Parliament’s significant amendments. I fully share this point of view. The rapporteur has, however, has started on the path of one-upmanship, and, in supporting 47 amendments, he was taking the risk of causing a delay in the entry into force of the best terms of this text. The Council’s common position will make it possible to make real progress regarding pollution related to heavy-duty vehicle traffic. I was not in favour of adopting the amendments on which the House had to vote, since this would have delayed the entry into force of this text and thus the implementation of investment and industrial strategies. The sooner the directive can come into force, the greater the beneficial effect on the environment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Portuguese Presidency of the Council has a hard task ahead of it. The last two presidencies formulated objectives and arranged mandates which were perhaps not terribly extensive. You have the task of implementation. That may give you satisfaction in the end but it is a hard task which you have been set, especially the last point which Mr Sakellariou referred to, i.e. the question of implementing a European foreign and security policy. The European Parliament will support you fully in this. Of course, we are keen for it to complement NATO but we are also keen for Europeans to develop their own capacities in this area so that we can meet the challenges. You also have the task of restarting the Barcelona process, while developments in negotiations in the Near East afford totally new opportunities. I have the impression that the parties involved are now much more amenable to a European role in this area than was previously the case. I wish you and Mr Patten every success in dealing with this task. Other points, of course, are the Intergovernmental Conference and the ratio between enlargement and the European Union’s ability to act, problems relating to the risk of overstretching and the decisions which we need to take at the Intergovernmental Conference. You are bound by a mandate. On the other hand, experience has proven that when one of the parties involved tables a proposal during negotiations, it is very difficult to prevent that proposal from being discussed. In other words, practice and the possibilities granted give you the opportunity to interpret that mandate in a wide sense. I think that it would be most helpful as regards the decisions which we in the European Parliament have to take in our position, if you, for your part, undertook to interpret your mandate in the wider sense. Then we would have a better opportunity for setting out our ideas of democracy and the European Union’s ability to act on the negotiating table.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Belarus commemorates the Chernobyl disaster on 25 April of each year, and tens of thousands of people take part in those commemorations. In the West, it is a little known fact why that is, for the nuclear power station was located in Ukraine. But upon closer inspection of the effects of the disaster, it becomes clear that Belarus, where more than 70% of the nuclear fall-out ended up, was at least as badly affected as Ukraine. In the latter country, nearly two and a half million people were exposed to radioactivity. Over the past ten years, the Ukrainian government has spent USD six billion to combat the effects, and this spending is set to continue for the time being. To quote a few examples: funding is needed to repair the housing built around the exploded reactor as it is deemed unsafe. A great deal of materials polluted by the explosion need to be stored and processed. Ukraine’s main river, the Dnepr, is still at risk of becoming contaminated. The European Union has addressed a number of these problems in good time and has given a great deal of aid to Ukraine – something which the Commissioner already referred to – although the effectiveness of that aid is sometimes called into question. The situation in Belarus is possibly worse still. About two and a half million people are still living in the contaminated areas where they often eat contaminated food. The health situation is alarming, especially for the children. The socio-economic situation in that country is bad anyway, which makes the people more vulnerable to disease and adverse effects than in normal circumstances. The government in Minsk may spend a huge proportion of the government budget on the effects, but it refuses to deal with the problem openly. Its policy is often counterproductive and screens the problem from the outside world. The international community is involved, albeit on a small scale. NGOs carry out their work under difficult conditions. My admiration goes especially to the European organisations which bring thousands of children to western Europe annually for a holiday in order to enable them to recover to some extent from the effects of radiation. But that, of course, is not enough by a long chalk. Relations between the European Union and the undemocratic government in Belarus are strained. We can understand that. At the same time, it is difficult to accept that not more of an effort is being made, precisely in the interest of the people affected, who are not at all involved in government politics. It has been said before, but I would once again like to make an urgent appeal to the Commission to free up more specific aid for Belarus. I am not convinced by the argument that neither TACIS nor ECHO allow this. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are still in need and still require direct aid. Let us for once overstep our own political and bureaucratic boundaries.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office, the citizens of the European Union have a right to security and they recognise that the European Union has a very decisive role to play here. They also recognise that internal security is the sine qua non for stability and economic development in the European Union. They also showed during the recent elections that those who deny this need and are not prepared to take suitable measures will find themselves ousted from office. I am grateful to President Prodi for speaking in such unequivocal terms here today and I welcome and expressly support the Spanish initiative to be taken at the summit in Seville. President Aznar said that immigration is a key problem and he is right. But what we want are differentiated immigration measures. We want measures to speed up the asylum process and measures to integrate genuine refugees, but we also want measures to control and limit immigration, depending on the capacity and needs of our individual Member States. And we want a package of measures so that war refugees can be housed temporarily. What we particularly welcome is the package of measures designed to combat illegal immigration and trafficking, especially the initiatives you intend to take to set up a European border police force to be deployed in the zones along our current and future external borders which are particularly at risk. I also welcome cooperation with the countries from which immigrants come, help in bringing about political and economic stability, readmission agreements and sanctions against countries which are not prepared to protect their borders and even encourage illegal emigration. If a great deal has been promised and initiated in the past and very little achieved, it has nothing to do with the Council presidency and everything to do with individual Member States and national animosities. I call on you with the utmost urgency to lobby the Seville Summit to put these measures into practice, especially the measures on immigration. You can count on the full backing of the European Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE