GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the hunger strike by Turkish prisoners and their relatives has been going on for months and has cost many people their lives. The European Union must stop standing by in silence as more and more people die. The European Parliament must take a decisive stand if it is to be taken seriously as a negotiating partner. We must not be indifferent to the massive violations of human rights in Turkish prisons. We must not forget human values. The European Union must insist that human rights are respected. The Turkish parliament recently passed a law relaxing conditions of solitary confinement. Now prisoners sentenced under the anti-terrorist law are to be allowed to take part in cultural and sporting activities. My criticism of this law is that it does not allow all prisoners to take part in group activities. All prisoners must be treated equally. I cannot stand by while prisoners are tortured and maltreated in solitary confinement and exposed to the arbitrary treatment of the guards without witnesses. People in solitary confinement are totally cut off from the outside world. And yet everyone needs human contact and interaction. We urgently need to find a way of preventing further deaths. On behalf of the group, I therefore call on the Turkish government and the prisoners' organisations to reach an agreement through political dialogue. Dialogue will allow a social consensus to be reached, while force will only be answered with force. My group cannot regulate Turkey's internal affairs. But we would all like to help put an end to this situation. If Turkey wants to be accepted in the European Union, it must stand up for democratic, humane values in the penal system. Human rights must apply to everyone, including prisoners. My wish is for agreement, for internal peace and for an end to hatred which opens up deep wounds. That is why we must speak out.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Could the Commissioner tell me if what he said adds up to a guarantee that there will be a better balance between commitments and payments in Asia and Latin America and that we will have better utilisation of the funds voted for in the budget?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, an important step in the completion of the internal market is, of course, the Statute for a European Company. I shall devote my one minute of speaking time to this topic. Finally, after 20 years of discussion, we have an agreement in the form of a regulation due to enter into force in 2004. Parliament has given it its full backing and has even waived its codecision powers in order to save time. It now appears that our European businesses show little enthusiasm for the European Company. According to some reports, there are few, if any, businesses interested in changing into a European Company, the reasons being that it would be too time-consuming, with no immediate benefits and, above all, no uniform fiscal regime. Are the Council and the Commission aware of this lack of interest and of the risk that setting up a European Company is threatening to become a hollow exercise? Is there a certain strategy in order to encourage our businesses to become European companies?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, firstly I should like to thank all those who have spoken, and especially those who agreed with the report. I also strongly congratulate Commissioner Vitorino for successfully brokering an agreement in his working group on the technical and semantic problems which have confronted some representatives of Member States. On the question of the preamble, I quite agree and I will accept Amendment 7. To my Eurosceptic friends, I say that this is not some subversive plot. The Charter carries great authority and legitimacy. What it lacks is clarity and legal certainty. It is precisely to ensure that we can improve the position as regards certainty and clarity that we are seeking its incorporation. We are not being shamefully silent, as Mr Crowley said, on the impact on national law. The charter primarily concerns the competences of the European Union and the powers of the Union authorities. Finally, can I say that Lord Stockton and I find ourselves in appropriate political parties in Great Britain.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I also voted for the Communication: “The strategy for Europe’s internal market”, despite the fact that the text did not include the opinion drafted by Mr Medina Ortega on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, page 20 of which states that from the point of view of social security, the ideal of supplementary pensions requires the creation of a genuine European social security system – and I repeat, European social security system – to replace the current approach, which is based on the harmonisation of national systems. I am not, therefore, alone in hoping that, tomorrow, the 15 governments will at last decide to take social security and pensions in hand at European level, for this is the only way to prevent the current breakdown of the systems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, our debate today reveals a continuing difficulty at the heart of the European Union's approach on foreign policy. Is the intention to give an enlarging group of European nations a stronger voice on the world stage and improve the coordination and effectiveness of their policies on a range of issues? If so, I can support this. Or is the ambition to move towards a European state, with its own foreign and security policy backed by its own diplomatic service and army? This concept I wholeheartedly reject. It is certainly not wanted by the British people, nor, I believe, is it wanted by many of the citizens in the rest of Europe. They have never been asked in honest terms. Mr Patten today reiterated his view that for the indefinite future there will be national foreign ministers. But this is only half the problem. What will be the content of their jobs in ten years' time if the EU continues on its present course? After all, once EMU is fully established there will still be finance ministers in the euroland countries. But how much real responsibility will they have? Clearly there are many in this House who are quite open in their advocacy of a single foreign ministry for Europe and the Galeote Quecedo report which was voted on today with its proposals for a permanent Community diplomatic service is, I am afraid, a step in this direction. I am also concerned by the extent to which many want to define European foreign policy in terms of its distinctiveness from the United States policies, sometimes even deliberate hostility to the United States positions. A priority for the European Union must surely be to break out of this antagonistic mindset and instead seek, as a primary aim, to contribute to western solidarity. The best forum for dealing with security policy issues is NATO rather than the European Union and the danger is that the common European security and defence policy, with its emphasis on an autonomous capability, will undermine the alliance which served us so well during more threatening times.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I want to begin by saying that the Group of the supports the Commission’s proposals for reforming the common fisheries policy. The measures and proposals presented should have come about a very long time ago. That is why they are now absolutely necessary. The only thing we are doubtful about and see problems with is the Commission’s proposal concerning the possibility of reducing the fishing fleets by means of the simple ‘one boat in, one boat out’ proposal. I do not really understand how that could work and how it could possibly lead to our obtaining a smaller fishing fleet. I can also understand the Commission’s frustration in view of the difficulties in getting the Council and the Member States to accept their responsibility. For so many years, ministers and the Council have failed to see the connection between fisheries policy and a reduced access to fish. They have taken no responsibility at all for sustainable development and for ensuring that fish stocks are preserved, this being the only possible way of rescuing the fishing industry. Where, for example, the Irish Sea is concerned, a quota 28% higher than what researchers have considered to be acceptable has been permitted over the last ten years. In this context, it does not matter whether the fishing fleets come from Ireland or Spain or some other country. I should therefore like to say that we now face our hour of destiny when it comes to fish stocks. The Council has not wished to decide about restrictions on catch quotas, which have not been at all realistic. There have been no adequate supervisory programmes, and there has been no desire to place limits upon fishing fleets. We already know that this is the cause of the whole problem. What shall we do, therefore? I think we must be able to adopt the Commission’s proposals. Sweden plans to introduce a unilateral moratorium on cod fishing in the Baltic. That is in actual fact a demand made by the Group in connection with the formation of a government. Cod is threatened, not only in the Baltic but also in the Kattegat and throughout the North Sea. The International Marine Research Council believes that the EU’s reconstruction plan is entirely inadequate and that the situation is urgent. We must therefore adopt measures as drastic as introducing a moratorium. I now hope that the Commission will support this proposal. I also assume that the Commission will, as soon as possible, respond positively to the possibility of using the structural funds for compensation, for that is completely in line with the Commission’s own proposal about the possibility of acting responsibly to safeguard and preserve fish stocks in the future too.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, on Saturday, Cyprus votes on the Annan Plan and its future. Cyprus stands at a historic juncture. European Liberal Democrats and Reformers in this House have consistently urged all parties to support the plan and we do so again now. The Annan Plan offers Cyprus a chance for reconciliation and renewal. It is a door to a better future on an island that has endured too much for too long. The plan makes important concessions to both sides. With goodwill on both sides it could be a first step away from years of partition. My Group thanks Commissioner Verheugen for the leadership he has shown in this matter. We regret that more EU leaders have not expressed the same commitment more volubly. The European Union will underwrite a huge amount of the reunification process and the Court of Justice will provide a legal framework for its resolution. This is the last, best hope for a unified Cyprus to join the European Union on 1 May. We salute the leaders on both sides in Cyprus who have supported the Annan process and have commended it to their fellow Cypriots. 'No' would have been the simple choice: the answer which rhymed easily with resentment and suited political expediency. 'Yes' took courage. There are many Cypriots, particularly on the Greek side, who ask what business it is of ours to be having this debate at all. In the face of all our concern and consternation they offer simply the shrug of self-determination. They can and will vote as they please and they have the right to vote 'no'. But I believe it would be a sad and sectarian choice, the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. Moreover, if the purpose of self-determination is the freedom to go on nursing old resentments and the right to weigh the money in your pocket today against reconciliation tomorrow, the Cypriots who have turned their faces against this process are welcome to it. I would just ask them to reflect on this. What if the West Germans had chosen that kind of self-determination in 1990? On our scarred continent with its crowded history there are some old scores where restitution and compensation can only ever be relative. Only the historically illiterate can believe that we can somehow fix what has happened in Cyprus, anymore than we can fix Kosovo and Serbia or Israel and Palestine. What Cyprus needs is a modus vivendi: some way of living that looks forward rather than backward. The Annan Plan is a modus vivendi. If it is lost on Saturday it could put back the reunification of Cyprus by a generation. The European Union would have to face up to a new reality on the ground: the possibility for a peaceful transfer of land will be lost; the Turkish army will continue to guard what will remain a militarised border; UN peacekeepers will patrol within the European Union. The English writer Lawrence Durrell, who lived for many years on Cyprus, recorded a Greek Cypriot proverb that says there is no fire in old ashes. Liberal Democrats and Reformers in this House hope beyond hope that Sunday will not find Cypriots stirring the cold old ashes of a sad history. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, this is a very important report and it approaches a difficult subject. Despite the best efforts of the rapporteur, there will still be those who will seek to get around it and to look at every way to carry on with their dirty dealings. Baroness Ludford spoke quite rightly about the effects of this on the City of London and the legal profession. She is a lawyer or barrister by profession and perhaps she should have declared an interest. She will know that all of these professions and their associated professions – accountants and auditors – will look at any possibility to help their clients. Those clients may be involved in all sorts of dodgy transactions. They should be covered. Only by concerted effort by all those parties concerned internationally will we be able to tackle the industry of money laundering. I would like to tackle money lending as well, but that is another issue. I have been seriously lobbied by the British banks about Amendment No 17, which they do not like because it tries to prevent people they do not know from paying in huge amounts of cash. This is just the sort of thing we have to tackle if money laundering is to be challenged properly. If it affects Internet banking, as they suggest, then there must be other ways that they can verify the credentials of people who are applying for accounts. Money laundering is linked to organised crime. We know that. It is linked to drug smuggling, terrorism and forgery of bank notes. I agree with Mrs Sörensen. Those who are developing the euro plan to bring in a EUR 500 note – approximately GBP 300, well over ten times the face value of the largest note in common usage in Britain. We have a GBP 50 note which is worth about EUR 80, but that is very rare. So if I were a forger I would start out now forging EUR 500 notes and have a field day for the next few months until people come to terms with it. There are loopholes in this system. We must do everything we can to counter them.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I recently represented the Group of the at the Socialist International Asia-Pacific Committee in Manila, where we had a first-hand opportunity to learn of the increasingly repressive regime in Malaysia. The government has used the tragic events of 11 September as an excuse for a crackdown on peaceful democratic opponents of the current regime who have no connections with either al-Qa'ida or any terrorist or fundamentalist groups. The Internal Security Act, the Emergency Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordnance and the Dangerous Drugs Special Prevention Measures Act all allow for detention without trial. It is important that pressure is put on the Malaysian Government by the Council, the Commission and Parliament to release those held under these laws, to repeal them and to fully restore the right to a fair and public trial and respect for human rights in that country.

Political group: PSE
With its communication 'Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources', the European Commission is seeking to harmonise and give practical form to the economic provisions of the EC framework directive on water resources. The Commission's proposal to monitor observance of the break-even principle by means of price surveillance is aimed at those EU Member States that still heavily subsidise their water industries. In contrast, in Germany the break-even principle is already being implemented, as is monitoring of unfair practices by the cartel office and by local authorities. Against this background, the framework directive on water resources and the Commission proposal on water pricing should not be used to create further layers of bureaucratic supervision in Germany. Furthermore, the provisions on the charging of environmental and resource costs associated with water use are aimed at those Member States that still make excessive use of and pollute their water resources, and therefore not at Germany, where exceptional efforts are already being made in this respect. The provisions of the framework directive on this point do not, therefore, provide any grounds for introducing a universal water or sewage tax in Germany, for example. In view of the non-binding nature of the economic provisions of the framework directive on water resources and the Commission communication, there is a danger that there will be a considerable delay in implementing these provisions in the countries actually being targeted, if they are, in fact, implemented there at all. If, as has already been the case with the transposition of other directives, Germany, the ‘model pupil’, goes its own way, this would heighten the distortions in competition between the national water industries in the EU still further, thus running counter to the aim of the directive, which is to create a uniform framework for Europe's water industry. Germany has to learn to implement EU provisions in accordance with the objectives of the directive, not as individual Länder would like. With the EU framework directive on water resources we will once again see individual countries going their own way.

Political group: PPE-DE
Our vote expresses the conviction that it is worthwhile having a European project that functions properly and is independent of military and defence activities, including that of third countries, which is not the case at present, given Europe’s dependence in this context on the United States of America. It is crucial, however, that the implementation of the project respects citizens’ rights, freedoms and guarantees, namely their privacy. Its creation may be an advantage for the mobile telecommunications services, which can use it for localisation applications requested by users if the financial cost does not render such use prohibitive. It is also necessary to take the cost of financing it into account, especially the share that may be demanded of countries that do not participate directly in its creation, in order not to hinder its implementation in the various Member States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen – few on the ground though you may be – Moldova is a country with which the European Union has a privileged relationship. It is also a TACIS recipient country and a country that may still be unstable, but is giving repeated consideration to strengthening its relations with the European Union and to perhaps, one, day, joining it. Developments in that country are, though, deplorable in the extreme and give grave concern not only to us but also to most of its population. There were, in any case, 80 000 people on the streets on 31 March, showing that quite a few are still going back on the streets to demonstrate despite repression and obstruction. What worries us is the relationship between the government and the opposition, which is neither healthy not democratic, nor, in our view, acceptable. We are, of course, concerned above all at the disappearance of a number of opposition politicians, including a number of highly prominent members of the opposition party and parliamentary deputies. Some of them were threatened or assaulted before disappearing altogether. That, as has already been said, is absolutely incompatible with democracy. That other members of the parliamentary opposition have been threatened with the suspension of their immunity is also a cause for concern on our part. That procedure is part of everyday normal life, but the way things stand in Moldova makes such suspension contrary to democratic practice. This being so – and I do not want to repeat all that has been said by Mrs Schroedter – we cannot continue to be bystanders. We must act, and act together. It is not on for things to be done in the middle of Europe – and Moldova belongs to this Europe of ours, and is to be respected by us as such – that belong to the darkest days of dictatorship. We find them unacceptable. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should just like Parliament to be clear about what it is voting on here. I am asking Parliament to do as we did before – to vote in favour of this in order to reject the Council's proposal.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the assassination of the Hamas chief had one effect, which was that the Arab League summit, which was to have taken place yesterday and today, was cancelled. That is a tragedy because the summit was to have considered a number of proposals for reform in the Arab region. I want to focus on this question of reform because that is fundamental to our security in the European Union. The Irish Foreign Minister spoke about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He also spoke about the evolution of democracy and civil society in these lands. My question is, what can we do? While Commissioner Patten spoke about the Barcelona process – a highly desirable process established a long time before the Americans' idea of a greater Middle East process – that process is not having the sort of effect that it should have. As some of you may know, I have spent some time in the last few months, as rapporteur on the democracy initiative, going to the conference in Sana'a, Yemen, to Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, to the Arab Parliamentary Union conference and to Athens last week with you, Mr President. This sort of democratic odyssey is trying to establish one thing: the appetite of the peoples of the Arab countries for democracy, the rule of law, civil society and so on. We know what our foreign policy priority is: we know it is human rights, it is democracy, the promotion of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. But in this arc of instability on our rim, while the EU is spending EUR 700 million plus in MEDA funds, only EUR 7 million of that is being spent on democracy. I find myself caught between the Scylla of bureaucratic obstructionism in the Council and the Charybdis of bureaucratic obstructionism in the Commission. We need a programme that works: we have the means to do it and we have the will to do it in this Parliament. The question is, do the Commission and Council accept their political priorities? I address my remarks to two senior politicians who both occupy positions of responsibility at a very sensitive time for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to thank the Commissioner for his reply and say that I feel reassured that at least a full explanation will be required. My understanding is that in making the announcement the British ministers stated quite clearly that this was a tax on foreign lorries and foreign hauliers. The supplementary question I would like to ask is: Is it, in the Commissioner's opinion, in accordance with European law that a haulier, fully taxed and compliant with the legislation of their own country, may not drive across the border into a neighbouring state? I live in a part of the Union where in order to move from part of the state to another it is necessary to drive through the United Kingdom. So is it acceptable that a vehicle may be stopped at the border of a neighbouring Member State if they comply with all the legal requirements in their own country? Secondly: If, as the minister originally intended, he proposes to put a tax on foreign lorries to subsidise hauliers of his own nationality, is that contrary to European law?

Political group: PPE-DE