GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there are reasons to feel deeply concerned about the physical and mental health of the detained journalists, the priest and the four Laotian citizens. Their names and locations have not been published. At the same time, we know that, on Monday 30 June of this year, they were sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, without their right to a defence being respected, for having, it was said, impeded an officer in the performance of his duties. When we, here in the European Parliament, draw attention to the lack of democratic rights in Laos, we urge the authorities in that country to ensure compliance with the country’s constitution that purports to guarantee religious freedom and freedom for religious groups. We call upon the authorities in Laos immediately to put a stop to all policies involving the persecution and oppression of the Hmong people, other minorities in Laos and Christian population groups. We also call upon the authorities in Laos to give the Red Cross permission to visit the political prisoners in order to assure themselves of their physical well-being. We also believe that the Commission should investigate whether it is appropriate to continue with the ongoing cooperation with the authorities in Laos and that it should report to Parliament on this issue. We request of the European Parliament that, if the imprisoned journalists have not been freed before then, the problem be added to the agenda of the next meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Allow me also to protest against the fact that the Laotian constitution has, in practice, wordings that impede religious freedom in the country by banning all acts that give rise to religious division or lead to a general division among the people. Under these laws, 60 Christians were arrested in 2002, and an active campaign to close churches was conducted between 1999 and 2001.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what efforts has the Turkish government made since the Helsinki Summit to guarantee human and fundamental rights, to find a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue and to abolish the death penalty? The latest amendment to the Turkish constitution does not go far enough. The death penalty has only been partially abolished and the Kurdish language has not been recognised. Is this a genuine reform? I would answer, no. Turkey must not be given any special treatment in the enlargement process. I think that we run the risk of giving in to Turkey's wishes if we adopt the Lamassoure report as it stands. The report is guarded on a number of issues so that we leave Turkey room for manoeuvre. We must insist that a political solution be found to the Kurdish issue and that human and fundamental rights be guaranteed. The time is right for sweeping reforms. In my conversations with people on my trips to Turkey they have repeatedly expressed a wish for peace, brotherliness and freedom. I, too, carry this message in my heart and will also do all I can in the future so that one day this wish will come true.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, my thanks go to the rapporteur for the excellent work on this report. As has already been established, the European Parliament has been very active for several years now in questions relating to food safety. The rapporteur has also carried out very valuable work by holding discussions with the Commission and Council, in order to ensure that the start-up of the food authority is not delayed; this means that at the Laeken Summit a genuine decision really has to be made concerning the siting of the office. With regard to the selection criteria, in my opinion Parliament has spoken quite correctly: it is a good idea to emphasise the research connection, the fact that the office is independent, and that there will be effective experts there to guarantee quality. In the case of transparency, I can only agree with the previous speakers; however, transparency also means that there is cooperation with the consumer organisations.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on a point of order. I have just been looking at the text of the joint motion for a resolution. I should like to point out that the name indicated as signing for the , the Lord Bethell, is most welcome to join our Group. I should like to place on the record how pleased we are to have a new member today who signs on our behalf.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, great declarations and little progress, summits come and go and they are all the same. Apart from the expected launch of the Convention, Laeken has provided few concrete results. Happily, at Lisbon, Europe had defined new ambitions in terms of economic growth and employment. In relation to that essential objective, Laeken was content to reiterate the Lisbon decisions. It is better than nothing but takes us no further. In terms of fiscal coordination, Laeken takes us to the end of 2002, but it is becoming clear that at Feira, fiscal Europe met with an impasse. The Feira agreement should lead to the exchange of information between Member States. The day when each citizen will pay the tax laid down by its own parliament, any desire for fiscal harmonisation, and healthy fiscal competition, will come to nothing. Each Member State will redefine its own fiscal policy. The others will have to provide the required information so that each person is taxed according to his nationality. Certain dependent or associated territories balk at adopting the exchange of information. Switzerland and other third countries refuse the system because they regard it as violating banking secrecy. Like Austria, Luxembourg and perhaps some others will not implement Feira without an agreement which extends to important financial markets outside the Union. Deadlock is still assured. I appeal to President Prodi to propose a pay-as-you-earn system on savings revenue as a direct European tax. Such a system would be accepted by the public if it is in full discharge, that is to say that it exempts the citizen from any other additional tax. A pay-as-you-earn system would prevent the enormous bureaucratic system which an exchange of information would imply, but above all, such a European tax could be payable on European assets in the United States, Switzerland and other countries. This would increase the Union’s income and allow us to reduce the current national contributions. Mr President, take this idea on board, and you will really bring progress to Europe. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The British Conservatives voted in favour of the Watson report in order to send a message that we will give no quarter in the fight against terrorism, and particularly to show solidarity with our colleagues involved in the on-going fight against terrorists, notably ETA. However, while the Conservatives have a long and proud record of fighting terrorism, our concerns about undue interference and politicisation in due legal process are equally long-standing. We are anxious that extending Community competence into this area will impair the ability of Member States to take those measures which they consider necessary to tackle this problem. We feel that it is premature to grant Europol far-reaching powers, and maintain our conviction that different national legal traditions mean that the way forward must be by cooperation, not harmonisation. We will never, under any circumstances, give succour to those who seek to use force to undermine legitimate democratic institutions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr Morillon has written a good report stressing that neither religious objections nor geo-strategic considerations are the decisive factors for Turkey's accession. The challenge for Turkey in fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria is to reform not only the constitution but also its political and intellectual inspiration. In Western Europe ideas of pluralism and differentiated identities within the same State have led to recognition of cultural, linguistic and political rights and devolution. Turkey needs to adopt these modern European notions of diversity and the right to be different. The Kemalist ideology that was modern in 1930 is not so in 2000. Hence my amendments on the need for a political solution for the Kurdish people. It is unacceptable that the Commission omitted any mention of the Kurds from the accession partnership document, though they have been referred to in successive regular reports and Mr Verheugen mentioned them this morning. I hope Parliament and the Council will remedy that omission. It does not help Turkey or the European Union to fight shy of this issue, the biggest single cause of Turkey's poor human rights record. Until there is a solution for the Kurds there will be no fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria and I therefore call upon Parliament to pass my amendments, and on the Council and Parliament to insist that a solution for the Kurds is a key to unlocking the problems of Turkey fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and Mrs Sandbæk have my support when they propose that the European Union should seek greater involvement in the areas of contraception, the fight against sexually-transmitted diseases and improved gynaecological provision in developing countries. I myself spent some time working as a doctor in Guatemala, an impoverished developing country, where I could see how necessary such aid is. Throughout these discussions, I have had in my mind's eye a woman who was one of my patients at the time and who had her eighth child at the age of twenty-four. I believe that we are under an obligation to bring to these women's attention what options are available by way of contraception. We are also, for example, under an obligation to increase the availability of condoms. Let me remind you, Commissioner, of how Mr Schmid of the Group of the proposed – all of two years ago – the establishment in Africa of a factory to manufacture condoms, enabling these to be made available there at low prices. I would ask the Commissioner to reconsider that. It is also my belief that ‘contraception and birth control’ is not just an issue of concern to women alone. I do believe that we have to give more support to science in its search for contraceptives for men. An international consortium has submitted an application in this area to the 6th research framework programme, but the Commission has, unfortunately, not considered it yet. One example of why I consider this very important is the medical fact that many women have an intolerance to the contraceptive pill, so alternatives are a matter of necessity, and this is one area where men cannot go on holding back. I do believe, though, that we have to make a very clear distinction between the issue of abortion and that of birth control, as well as the other issues discussed in the report. Abortion is a sensitive subject, and rightly so. I do not think it would be a good thing for the European Union to allocate to something like that any of the limited resources we have at our disposal for the support of people in developing countries. When I was, for five years, a member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, I constantly heard the Commission saying that there was not enough money. That was why they rejected many projects put before us by NGOs – projects that were not in the least controversial, and which everyone said we should support. As a result, I would have preferred it if this report had expressed, more clearly than it had done, that we support a great number of things – things that Parliament does not regard as controversial – but not abortion. I think Amendment No 53 expresses this very appropriately. I am glad that this report has been successfully focussed on the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and on the provision of real help for women. Above all, I wish to thank Mrs Martens for her great commitment. I would have liked us, however, to have put things in more precise terms – and perhaps tomorrow will find us managing to do that – so that we can indeed be united in our endorsement of this programme and of this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I actually think the speeches from the Council and the Commission were most enlightening. The United States now acknowledges the existence of the ‘Echelon’ system. Tongues are being loosened in certain Union governments. The press is crammed full of details about this all-pervasive electronic monitoring network. And yet, how embarrassed the Council and the Commission sounded! What tangled comments they made to avoid answering our questions. I did not hear the slightest explanation of why it was necessary to wait for Members of Parliament to discover this massive scandal nearly two years ago, and then recently for them to provide proof that their revelations were in fact true, before the Council would agree, in a very implicit and convoluted way, that there is indeed a problem. Let me restate the problem: by virtue of privileged and very special links, a strategic ally and a Member State are covertly joining forces to monitor private communications and spy on companies in other Union countries. Where is this taking us? With friends like that, who needs enemies? You will understand, Mr President, Commissioner, that with the truth now established, we feel entitled to ask you further regarding a number of questions that are on everyone’s mind today. First, what do you know about the type of information this system intercepts, the ultimate recipients the information is sent to, and the reliability of the protection that exists in Europe for people’s privacy and firms’ strategic data? Secondly, apart from the formal exchange of correspondence the Commissioner mentioned, what serious action has it undertaken with regard to the United States Government on this matter and with what outcome? Thirdly, what can you tell us about the role played by the United Kingdom in this system, or at least the role it intends to play in the future? Whether people like it or not, the ‘Echelon’ file is now open and it will remain open. After the European Parliament, the matter has been taken up by other parliaments and indeed the United States Congress, which I have contacted, because what we are doing is not anti-American. Our fellow citizens have been alerted. So I want to warn Members who are still hesitant that trying to stop this movement now would be a rearguard action, and would probably be severely condemned by democratic opinion. On the other hand – and I have listened carefully to what has been said, particularly by the spokespersons for the Group of the and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party – expectations would be fulfilled if we were to make progress together on truth, transparency and ethics in international relations. In tabling the call for a committee of inquiry, over a quarter of the Members of this Parliament have made that choice. I think Parliament will increase its stature by taking up this case by a majority.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as far as we are concerned, it is clear that the targets laid down in the Stability Pact constitute the definitive guiding principle for economic policy in the euro zone. That is why this report is so important, and in the light of the rapporteur’s reference in his explanatory statement to the fact that Greece’s programme is not dealt with in detail in his document as it will form the subject of a special report, then, on behalf of my Group, I am bound to say that it will be too late for the special report as far as we are concerned, because matters are not being handled as they were during the debate on the candidate countries two years ago in 1998. We also adopted the convergence reports in April of that year, and held the accession debate in May. Since the next item on the agenda is a debate on Greece’s membership of the euro zone, and we are to take a decision on it tomorrow, our Group has tabled several amendments, so as to enable us to be even-handed in our approach. This is why I would very briefly like to go into the fact that Greece has not yet completely fulfilled the criteria pertaining to public debt, and that the sustainability requirement, which we set great store by, as far as the inflation rate is concerned at any rate, is viewed by the ECB, as well as the Commission and ourselves, with some concern. Hence we would emphasise that whilst we welcome Greece’s participation in the EMS since 18 May 1998, and its achievements, the criteria must be applied in full to all candidate countries. We have noted that, according to reports by the Commission and the ECB, Greece is currently fulfilling the convergence criteria, – when they are given a liberal interpretation, as happened in 1998 too – although one cannot help but have some doubts on the sustainability front. This relates to the inflation criterion and we would demand a further reduction in the level of debt and the implementation of a programme. We are also calling for a concrete action plan to further privatise Greek state enterprise and implement the single market.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it is a source of deep regret that in a Parliament where a good 85% of people have staked their political reputations on the single currency, we do not have a greater attendance to discuss the performance of this currency. We know that it is 17 times more expensive to make a cross-border transaction transfer in the euro area than it is to make a domestic one. People joining the euro thought that if it did nothing else, it would make it easier and cheaper for them to take their money abroad. We see that this is not happening. This promised benefit has not materialised; and indeed, as the Commission candidly admitted when this report was discussed in committee, no improvement is expected in the situation after the introduction of notes and coins. This is another blow to a currency already struggling, a currency that hits a new low on the international market virtually every week, a currency with the bank president continuously under fire for his ill-judged comments to the press, a currency where, on the only occasion when the people of Europe were asked to cast their vote on whether to join or not, they voted 'no' in the recent Danish referendum. We now hear that the printers responsible for producing the notes are threatening to go on strike. Above all, even the most basic benefit that the euro enthusiasts promised the people of Europe, the reduction of transaction costs, is not being realised. What are the benefits for the people of the euro area from this currency that has been foisted on them by a political elite in Europe? This project is not about economics. This project is not about giving practical benefits to European citizens. It is and always has been a step on the road to creating a United States of Europe, a political project. We are seeing that it is failing to deliver any benefits to the mainstream majority of ordinary people in the euro area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are examining two reports, one on traceability and labelling of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and the other on genetically modified food and feed. These matters must be resolved in order to put an end to the Council moratorium on genetically modified organisms. It is no easy task to reconcile the different priorities that must be taken into consideration – first, consumers right to information; secondly, the priority of health and the environment; and thirdly, the functioning of the internal market – and yet this is essential. It leaves me speechless, however, to hear things like genes entering the environment. The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that a little more rigour in the interventions would not go amiss. I am not aware of any gene that has escaped in this way and flown out into the environment. We need to be rigorous and serious, we need to adopt the two proposals made by the Commission, which I think are quite reasonable, and try to adapt our proposal to what the market and consumers need. The first priority has to be keeping consumers informed and giving them the ability to choose. The second priority must be a health guarantee. The third priority is that we must always respect the freedom of the internal market and require of third countries what we are prepared to require of ourselves. We cannot have separate legislation and our consumers cannot be inundated with unlabelled genetically modified organisms from other countries because we are incapable of imposing our legislation on the international bodies. Mr President, I know that I am exceeding my time limit, but please allow me a little flexibility, as no other Members from my Group are going to speak. I would also like to say that labelling does not mean greater safety. Nor do I believe that it is the responsibility of Parliament, as a political parliament, to lay down a standard stipulating 0.5% or 0.3%. It should be a management committee that sets this parameter, which must be quantifiable. Lastly, ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, fishing is an activity which takes place in a naturally hostile environment, and is clearly associated with risk-taking. Risks are inherent in almost every decision made by a skipper or individual fishermen: on when and where to go fishing, what gear to use, when and where to land the catch, and so on. The level of marine accidents is unacceptably high. In the UK, for example, the fatality rate among fishermen is 20 times higher than that for workers in the manufacturing industry. Fishermen work in an unpredictable environment and are confronted with daily challenges from bad weather, fires on board, loss of power, poor vessel construction, poor communications and sometimes out-of-date navigation equipment. Casualties at sea have, unfortunately, become an integral part of the fishing profession. But the accident toll could undoubtedly be reduced if the fishing industry and individual fishermen, national authorities, the EU and international organisations faced this vital issue with enough thought, consideration, political will and economic means. I welcome this initiative, I congratulate the rapporteur and I hope that the Commission will follow up the recommendations in this report with positive action to improve safety and to reduce the number of accidents. It is also important that safety be one of the key priorities in the forthcoming review of the CFP. It is essential that we do not create a management regime which forces fishermen to go to sea when the weather is bad, for example, in complying with days-at-sea restrictions or attempting to land fish in a designated port cut off by bad weather. High prices in periods of bad weather may also drive fishermen working under quota systems out on risky fishing trips, which may be the only way to obtain the best prices for what they land against their quotas. Such risks are preventable if safety forms an integral part of fisheries management. I welcome the recent developments in Scotland, where changes in fishermen's safety training mean that an age exemption for older catchers will be a thing of the past and that basic sea survival, first aid and survival training will soon be mandatory for all fishermen. Finally, although a gradual ban on vessels more than 20 years old can be supported, the latter part of paragraph 4 in the report says, and I quote: '. . . except for those proven to be in perfect condition'. It would be better if that section read: '. . . except for those that have passed annual safety tests'. It is more practical to use that language than to open up a variable definition of perfect conditions. I therefore urge Members to support Amendment No 6.

Political group: Verts-ALE