GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, with regard to this resolution, which has received the consensus of all the groups, I would like to mention the last section, which refers to the need for effectiveness of the economic aid which, on this occasion, we are going to send to El Salvador, that very needy country. I have just spoken to the office responsible for humanitarian aid in Nicaragua and I would like to communicate to this House, and to the Commissioner, the great concern of all those self-sacrificing people who, today, are working on emergency aid, and who, tomorrow, will be involved in cooperation work, and the concern of the Spanish and international media about the fact that we have yet to send the promised economic aid following hurricane Mitch, when we are now facing the next tragic event. Members of the Commission, let us see if, this time, we can make it on time. I am saying this not only as a member of the Delegation for Relations with the Countries of Central America and Mexico, but also as coordinating spokesman of the Group of the European People’s Party and in the Committee on Budgetary Control. To spend so late is to throw money away. Money must be spent on time and the officials – not only those in El Salvador, but also those in Brussels – will have to assume their responsibilities. Mr Kinnock’s reform must serve some purpose. Let us see whether or not, this time, the aid to alleviate the consequences of the earthquake arrive before another tragic event strikes this sister country. To be effective, aid must arrive at the right time. Otherwise, there will be so many people working with no compensation in those countries, so many people waiting, so many administrative costs, and for what? If we cannot do it any other way, let us send aid by means of the Member States. We already give money to the UN – to the UNHCR – we are the main contributors, and they only fly the United Nations flag. So, although it does not look good, let us do it by means of Spain or Austria, or under two flags, but the emergency aid, and especially the cooperation aid, must arrive. Let us not make fools of ourselves again. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I must apologise for my absence earlier. I had notified the services that I would be temporarily unavailable. Mr President, my group disapproves of the decision taken by the British Government on the cloning of human cells. In our view, it does not take account either of European legislation on this matter or of the opinion that the European Union’s ethics committee is in the process of drafting on the consequences of research in cloning. We wish to state our support for prohibiting any research into human cloning and we oppose any commercial exploitation of biotechnological inventions that involve cloning. Having stated these general positions of principle, the debate is only beginning on the attitude we should adopt towards biotechnological research, both in order to fully weigh up its ethical implications, but without running the risk of slowing down work which is likely to bring about improvements in human health. Given the extremely sensitive nature of these issues, which concern civilisation itself, my group does not wish to see resolutions adopted in haste. Instead, we have from the outset stated our support for the establishment of a temporary committee on cloning and on biotechnological research so that we can hold the hearings necessary for adopting a position with a full understanding of the issue when the time comes. This is why my group has not signed any of the compromise motions for resolutions that have been submitted to us today. At this stage, each of us will speak according to his or her conscience about the principles that I have just stated.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I know that the President-in-Office, a highly respected former colleague in this House, will take back our views to the General Affairs Council. There may be no consensus among the Member States, but there is broad consensus in this House. Since the end of the Gulf War, our strategy has been one of containment and deterrence. To change that strategy, we need compelling evidence that our objectives in the regions would be better served by military strikes. Even with such evidence, military action should not be undertaken without clear and realistic political objectives and a commitment to finance and administer the necessary reconstruction. To win a war against terrorism in one country, you need broad consensus of support in that country. To win a war against terror across borders, we need to build a consensus across borders. The Council must unite, either to agree such objectives, to make such a commitment, to build such a consensus, or to rein in the declared ambitions of the United States. Mr President-in-Office, an opinion poll by the German Marshall Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations shows that two European citizens in three support the Union acting in this way. We in this debate are urging you to seize the initiative.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, on Tuesday, Mohamed al-'Owhali was sentenced to life imprisonment in New York for the Nairobi US Embassy bombing, whilst his boss, Osama bin Laden, is given sanctuary by the Taliban as an Islamic hero of Afghanistan. This country is now so extreme and medieval that paper bags are banned in case they contain pulped versions of the Koran and women are veiled, segregated from men and unable to work at all. Even chess and the flying of kites have been banned as un-Islamic, though there are many Islamic scholars who would contest such interpretations of the Koran. Indeed the rules imposed by the Taliban would appear to derive less from the Koran than from the tribal customs dependent on a view that sees women's value as essentially procreative and economic alone. Until recently the focus has been on ensuring that Muslims behave in accordance with Islam. However, in March, following a takeover of the Taliban by a hard-line faction linked to bin Laden, the extraordinarily beautiful 5th-century Buddhist statues in Bamiyan were destroyed with dynamite. Now echoes of Nazi Germany are heard as Hindus, many tens of thousands of whom I represent as a community in London, are required to identify themselves visibly in public with a yellow cloth. I am not suggesting that direct intervention in the country which defied the Red Army is either appropriate or feasible. Moreover, intervention in the internal affairs of other states by outsiders can often exacerbate and prolong a conflict, as may have happened in the Balkans. It may be that we simply have to wait for things to burn themselves out. Nor should it be forgotten that there is peace of a kind in most of Afghanistan now. However, the Taliban should be left in no doubt that, should they want our help, they will have to listen to the widespread concerns of people around the world, who are shocked and horrified at the brutal character of their medieval regime.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in February 2001, a delegation from SAARC – the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation – travelled to Sri Lanka; I, as its Vice-President, was with them. We met the former opposition leader, who is now the Head of Government. We spoke with Buddhists, Hindus and Christians, including Bishop Dr Joseph, who had a mediating role. We flew by helicopter to Jaffna, saw the villages that had been destroyed, and demonstrations by the people who wanted to go home. The civil war had lasted twenty years, had claimed a toll of over 60 000 dead, and human rights organisations told us that ‘war is an institution’. A year later, though, there was a ceasefire, a triumph for the Norwegian peace mission, whose work has always enjoyed our support. They are perfectly justified in now closing their operation down in response to the home-made crisis for which President Chandrika Kumaratunga must bear responsibility. It was she who took control of three government ministries, she who dissolved the democratically-elected parliament and promptly declared the country to be in a state of emergency. She charged the prime minister with making too many concessions to the Tamil Tigers. Although the two rivals, meeting in Colombo, agreed two days ago to set up a commission to lay down rules on the basis of which they could cooperate in future, the conflict does not appear to have been resolved. For that to happen, agreement is needed, enabling the initial favourable developments to be followed up. My party of visitors is well aware of that. Significantly fewer people are falling victim to violence. The security situation has improved in many parts of the country. More people are meeting across the line of demarcation, which was formerly hermetically sealed. In economic terms, too, there are encouraging signs. Growth stands at around 5% this year. More support can be expected from the international community in the shape of USD 4.5 million in reconstruction aid following the Tokyo conference, to which Mr Rod has just referred. This is, however, dependent on a peace treaty soon being on the table. Progress has also been made in that representatives of the LTTE have, for the first time, agreed to free elections in the North. We wish the people of Sri Lanka a speedy end to private feuding in the interests of peace.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am sure we all agree that terrorism is one of the most critical challenges our society has to face. It is a global phenomenon, with cells operating throughout the world. It can therefore only be effectively combated internationally. Fighting terrorism also means defending human rights and democracy. The cowardly terrorist attacks and murders we have seen recently, which have been at their most virulent in Spain, testify to the need to intensify European anti-terrorist cooperation. International terrorism, which draws support from many a dictator or Islamic fundamentalist regime, cannot be effectively combated in the European Union unless the competent national authorities cooperate with each other. Our House also bears responsibility in this respect; to exercise this responsibility, we must nail our colours to the mast by adopting this report on the role of the Union in combating terrorism and making it clear that we are unanimously committed to the fight against terrorist activity. I wish to thank the rapporteur for his outstanding work towards this goal. Our proposals are intended to create the conditions for effective European cooperation among the Member States in order to put an end to the murders committed by terrorist organisations such as ETA in Spain.

Political group: PSE
We voted for the joint motion for a resolution despite the fact that we neither approved of a number of the terms used, nor the silence pertaining to the French government’s responsibility with regard to the situation in Tunisia. This is because this is the only means given us by parliamentary procedure through which we are able to express our protest against the dictatorship in Tunisia. By protesting at this dictatorship, however, we are looking to denounce the support that it has been given by the French Government, just as many other dictatorships do and have done in the past, in the former colonial empire representing French imperialism in Africa. We note the Jesuitism of the parties that have succeeded one another in government in France, which are voting here for a resolution to demand rights and freedoms in Tunisia. When they are in power and when they have, therefore, the means to apply considerable pressure on the Tunisian regime, they do nothing, since, in fact, they do not give a hoot about the rights and liberties in this country, from the moment that its leaders secure order and, above all, from the moment that economic relations become smooth and profitable for France. - Marset Campos Report (A5-0133/2000) Mr President, we are not against the planned aid for the poor countries of Central America, and that is why we have voted for the report, despite the inadequacy of the proposals. We are, however, convinced that this aid will benefit the population only to a very limited extent, as there are no plans to control the allocation of these sums and consequently, there is nothing to guarantee that they are not, at least partly, misappropriated by the government, or even directly by the wealthy classes. Furthermore, all aid, even the best controlled, will be absolutely no use at all as long as these countries continue to be plundered and their populations exploited by large western cartels. (1)

Political group: GUE-NGL
President Prodi, we understand how difficult it is to summarise in a short document the complexity of the issues dealt with by the European Commission. I shall therefore limit myself to only two, and I should be grateful if these could be looked at again. We can see what is going on in the agricultural sector: we, as the European People’s Party, feel that there is an absolute necessity to review the terms of the common agricultural policy and, above all, to understand the scope of future strategies. Consider the financial burden the agricultural policy places on our budget. However, we must also consider the political cards which will be played on agriculture, and the issue of globalisation. You yourself recalled the Lamy proposal, an extremely important proposal but one which will have major implications for agriculture. Let us also think about what will happen on the food production front in terms of safety, what will happen in the fields of typical productions and biotechnology. If we then add the issues of enlargement and the relaunch of agriculture in some areas such as the Mediterranean basin, we shall want to know what Model of European Agriculture the Commission intends to create and, above all, we shall certainly want assurance that this agricultural model will not be placed on the foreign policy table and regarded as a bargaining counter in situations arising out of international requirements. The second issue concerns the Mediterranean, whose importance was shown by a forum in which we took part last week. Well, as regards the Mediterranean, substantial problems still remain unresolved. On this issue, we want a policy to be agreed which guarantees the same privileges for the South as those granted to other areas of the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to ask a question. We have often had occasion to discuss with Commissioner Nielson the possibility of his visiting Chechnya to assess the humanitarian situation there in more detail, and we also wish to send a parliamentary delegation to Chechnya. At this EU-Russia Summit, could you not put on the agenda the fact that the European institutions wish to visit Chechnya to see the situation there for themselves? Perhaps you could also discuss this with Commissioner Nielson – while Denmark has the Council Presidency you can of course also do that in his mother tongue. But that apart, it is important that an official visit takes place.

Political group: PPE-DE
In the context of aid to the poorest countries, the US cannot impose a development model by implementing measures related to sexual and reproductive health rights. I am referring specifically to sterilisation and abortion. Under the guise of altruism in granting aid, the EU cannot promote and even less encourage these practices, for two fundamental reasons: the first is respect for human rights – and in particular to protect the right to life – and the second is due to the limits imposed by the sovereignty of the States and populations who will benefit from our financial aid. The content of this report is ambivalent and could lead to abuses as a result of its implicit promotion of abortion. Any options or measures decided on in this field, in the context of health, can only be determined by States in accordance with their national laws. We can only vote in favour of a report that safeguards the incontrovertible principle of the right to life and of respect for the sovereignty of States. We have no misgivings about the report’s assertion that abortion cannot under any circumstances be considered to be a method of family planning, and much less a service in the field of sexual and reproductive health.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in my two years in this Parliament I have never received such a barrage of letters of complaint as I have about this report. I am talking particularly about whole-body vibration aspects, rather than hand and arm vibration. These comments are not just from employers, large and small, in farming, quarrying, mining, engineering and construction businesses – to name but a few – who are rightly concerned about the very viability of their entire industries under these proposals. They are also from ordinary employees concerned about their jobs if the rapporteur's amendments go through. Recently published and well-respected scientific work from Germany, Italy and the UK, as well as the rapporteur's own country of Denmark, shows no direct quantifiable link between whole-body vibration and back pain. I note that Mr Hughes maintains otherwise; not for the first time his own government disagrees with him. The above comments from constituents have two things in common: their anger that Socialist MEPs should be proposing such amendments in the first place, and their sheer disbelief that such MEPs could be so out of touch with reality. Let me be clear. The above comments are nothing to do with health and safety, issues which all of us recognise as important. They are everything to do with the rapporteur jumping to conclusions that are not supported by specific scientific evidence. The UK government is strongly opposed to the rapporteur's proposed amendments which, it maintains, would damage industry and agriculture for no benefit. UK Conservative MEPs agree, and we urge the UK Labour MEPs, who supported this report so resolutely in committee, now to support the common position, and meanwhile to support our compromise, tabled jointly by a number of political groups. I urge you all to join us in voting for sound science and sound sense.

Political group: PPE-DE
The question of human rights is one to which we could never be indifferent, yet this does not give us the right to give lessons on human rights. It does, however, give us sufficient moral authority to refuse to accept other people’s criteria for determining whether behaviour in the area of human rights is good or bad. Our abstention, far from being tantamount to indifference, is intended to show how important the question of human rights is to us and how we do not accept the approval of resolutions that are based on market ideology and related concepts, in which certain countries are mentioned and certain others not, in which there appear to be favourite sons and black sheep... whereas there are no prodigal sons – perish the thought! – in the field of competitiveness and productivity. We similarly refuse to accept the smokescreen of compensation, in which the inclusion of some makes up for mere reference to others. This explains our vote.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The ayatollahs on the Council of Guardians are doing everything they can to hold on to their religious, political and economic power. Their exclusive power to interpret the Koran is constantly being abused for political ends. They block everything that does not appeal to them or that could impinge on their own position of power. They have now vetoed more than a third of the laws adopted by the parliament. More than 2 500 reform-minded candidates have now been excluded from the elections, including around 80 sitting MPs. Whilst large sectors of society, young people in particular, want modernisation and freedom, the hard core in power is clinging to medieval ideas and repressive practices. The younger generation constitutes the vast majority of the population in Iran. In addition, even many former revolutionaries have become disillusioned by the clergy’s abuse of power. President Khatami himself calls the exclusion of candidates a threat to the nation and the system. The conflict between reformers and conservative clergymen is increasingly coming to a head. If nothing is done about it, it seems that it is only a matter of time before the situation boils over, with everything that entails. The human rights and democratic situation in Iran is still extremely worrying. Unless substantial improvements are made, the European Union will not be able to form a partnership. It is highly debatable whether it is actually still advisable to continue to negotiate. What is Commissioner Patten’s opinion on this? Does he still see prospects for partnership with Iran now that the situation is deteriorating so dramatically? Nor is the human rights dialogue with Iran of any great account, as I know from personal experience. It will not make things any better if the parliamentary elections turn out to be a farce. The European Union must not lend itself to a dialogue that is used as a pretext for not actually carrying out any reforms. Iran is a potentially rich country with an ancient civilisation, and has the potential to play an extremely important, constructive role in the region. It will not become a new civilisation, however, whilst the ayatollahs continue to abuse their unrestricted power, but will instead be doomed to remain an international pariah.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, we have been looking forward to being able to put questions tomorrow in the committee. It is of course a great pleasure after so many years to be able to put the finishing touches to this directive. There is no doubt about that. The directive has been in preparation for an incredibly long time, and I am also delighted to commend it to the House tomorrow. It is also good that, unlike the other directives on physical agents, it is not full of transitional periods, possible dispensations and a host of exemptions. This is something I think we can learn from when preparing the future directives in this area. That being said, I must say how disappointed I am that the directive does not in any way mention the long-term effects of electromagnetic fields. I am aware that there are problems in showing the connection between exposure and the development of cancer. I think, however, that our legislation has to be influenced by the fact that we at present see a number of examples of people who worked with radar in the seventies and eighties and who now appear to be following a pattern of developing cancer. I find it disappointing that this is not mentioned at all in the directive. I think that, at some time or other, we must take account of the fact that there is also a precautionary principle in this area. If we begin to see a pattern in those cases whereby, after 20 or 30 years, people develop cancer, we should do something about the fact. I should therefore like to ask you directly, Commissioner, whether I heard you correctly and whether you do in fact interpret Article 11 of the directive as saying that the Commission undertakes to present a new proposal as soon as there is new knowledge of the long-term effects of electromagnetic fields. I should be very glad if the Commission could confirm this. I think it is very important for the next Parliament to have a practical basis on which to proceed further.

Political group: PSE