GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I will start by saying something about money. The EUR 17.5 billion are in my view insufficient, above all when you consider the ambitious goals that Europeans are always setting themselves. It is certainly far too little when you consider the imminent enlargement of the European Union. These funds are one day to be invested for 25 or even more Member States, and that is not enough. That, though, is how things are these days. I hope in any case that the Council will approve at least these EUR 17.5 billion, or else, and here I agree with Mr van Velzen, there will be trouble. European research policy is very much seen in terms of participation in the research programmes. I want to vigorously urge the Commission to do everything possible to make the submission of applications and their processing easier, so that the researchers can spend their time on real research rather than on filling in forms. My third observation is on fusion. We wrangle about this over and over again, and I respect the different opinions that are held on the subject. The only thing I cannot accept is that this research will not bear fruit for a very long time. We urge the young to start early on providing for old age, even though, from a young person's point of view, old age is a long, long way away. We are talking here about the same sort of provision. Whether a fusion power station is eventually built or not, is for those who come after us to decide. We should, however, give them the option. I have always considered it very important that the European Union should concern itself with highly sensitive questions that had formerly been beyond our scope, for example, new methods of detecting and removing landmines. It is fortunate that we have had a programme of this sort within the European Union for a number of years, and it has achieved noteworthy successes. My heartfelt plea is that this programme should be continued, ambitiously developed and coordinated, if possible, by a single office within the Commission. I am thinking here of the Joint Research Centre, whose achievements to date deserve to be highlighted. An attempt is similarly being made, incidentally, to involve European Union research in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological or chemical. I would remind you that the Commission will be making a statement this afternoon about the banning of biological weapons, which has to do with the fight against terrorism. In the former Soviet Union, today, there are still enormous stockpiles of biological and chemical agents that cannot be destroyed for lack of the necessary funds and often also of the necessary technology. This is an opportunity for the European Union to do something for the security of Europe and of the world. As far as bioethics is concerned, I urge support for the proposal by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, which simply takes account of the different understandings of the law on this subject in the Member States, and we as European legislators cannot supplant the Member States on this point. Such a respect for sovereignty is reflected in this proposal.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, our group supports this joint resolution which first, as other speakers have said, indicates the particular responsibility of the International Monetary Fund for the suffering of the Argentine people and some of the consequences of this situation. The European Union and the Member States must therefore act as one to ensure that the International Monetary Fund finds a solution to all this suffering and need. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the solution must involve creating stable employment. The economy needs to recover and we must help the people so that they can trust us. It is important for the European Union that Latin America should trust us, and we must therefore give priority to this matter. Lastly, we believe that the association agreement should include part of the current proposal, in order for it to be effective and enter into force as soon as possible in Mercosur.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the military coup that took place in Pakistan in October immediately after the army Chief-of-Staff, General Musharraf was stood down is condemned in the strongest possible terms by the Group. The constitution was declared to be invalid. The national parliament and the provincial parliaments were temporarily suspended. Even if the take-over of power by the military occurred without great protests from the population, there is no alternative to a properly functioning democracy brought about by free elections. The attempt to prove that the former Prime Minister Mr Sharif had participated in a criminal conspiracy and had built up a system of nepotism, should not become a show trial. Any legal proceedings must be fair and transparent to the general public. On meeting the EU’s special envoy, Walter Sari, on 2 November, General Musharraf rejected a timetable for the establishment of democracy. There is therefore no reason why the EU should be prepared to follow other states, which think that the stability programme that has been announced has a good chance of success. The first signs are quite hopeful: the assurance of a climate favourable to investment, tax relief, the thinning out of the bureaucracy and the ending of the personal enrichment of those in charge. The national banks must stop the custom of awarding generous loans to officials. The new, stricter anti-corruption legislation is a step in the right direction. The loss of confidence and flight of capital can only be stopped if democracy is restored and human rights are guaranteed. International investment has been suspended until the IMF accepts Pakistan as a full partner. We therefore demand that the military government return to constitutional rule. Politics must be taken over by a democratic legitimate civil government. The suspension of both Commonwealth membership and the European Union Cooperation Agreement can only be reversed when all the conditions for the urgently needed economic, social and humanitarian reforms in Pakistan are met.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I appreciate your reply but it does not go far enough. Will you recommend the adoption of effective emergency measures to combat the current situation: the scourge of hunger, the scourge of cold and the scourge of diseases? I can put it as brutally as today’s media: 120 children die of cold, barefoot, in temperatures fifteen degrees below zero; over 10 million, almost 11 million women survive without a right to health care, without a right to education, without a right to work, in subhuman conditions. We need something more than understanding, as you must realise. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, will you not recommend that some emergency measure should be adopted? How many more children will have to die of cold? How many million women will have to live without rights or freedoms? (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
A clear sign needed to be sent to the Council Presidency, because the proposal for a compromise, supported by the Commission and promoted by Spain, intended to create a single Atlantic zone to manage the fishing effort without dividing up the current conservation areas, not only fails to contribute to a sustainable policy in the field of fisheries, but would also have harmful effects, not least for Portugal, in terms of the conservation measures already in place and in socio-economic terms, both for the fleet and for regions that are dependent on the sector. We therefore helped to ensure that Amendment No 20 to this report was adopted, and we are fully behind it, since it proposes to continue with the current regulations for a period of ten years, after which, the arrangements will be assessed once again. I wish to state, despite the fact that all of the other proposals for amendments to the regulation have been rejected, that the Committee on Fisheries adopted our proposal to extend the limit of access to the exclusive economic area of the Azores and Madeira to 200 miles. The Council must also take account of this proposal in its negotiations for a compromise.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, this is a plea for everyone to calm down a little on the subject of this debate on racism. I know it is a subject that arouses great passion, but we are not talking about extremism here. This is a debate about racism. Nowadays, the perpetuators of racist crimes and actions belong to the extreme right wing. It would be another matter if the debate were about extremism. So, for five minutes, let us calm down. We know what we are here to discuss, so let us keep our tempers and let us get on with the debate. (Loud applause)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to send Mrs Damião my best wishes for her continued recovery. I would like to express my thanks to her and her colleagues, but also to Mr Lage, for their excellent cooperation. The Group of the European People’s Party supports the Damião report, not least because the whole thing – the action plan and the report – is based on a report by our fellow Member, John Purvis. The Damião report sends out a positive signal for biotechnology, but it also makes clear where we need better rules than currently exist. The report deliberately does not paint a 'black and white' picture. There is, after all, a view that genetic technology may be very positive in healthcare, but must be rejected at all costs in agriculture. The report rejects this position. We state quite clearly that there are opportunities in both sectors; in other words, there are opportunities in agriculture as well. Indeed, the report says that genetic technology can contribute towards finding genuine solutions to sustainable development, and I would like to emphasise this point. This is why we are opposed to the de facto moratorium. The Directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment was adopted a long time ago. The Member States should have implemented it in national law by October. I sat on the Conciliation Committee with David Bowe at the time, and I never dreamed that so many years later, this de facto moratorium would still be in place. The report says that it must end by 2003. I believe that it should actually end now, because the deadline for the implementation of Directive 220/90 has already passed. Otherwise, SMEs in particular will suffer considerably, as Mrs Müller has already said. Just as there are not only risks but also major benefits in the agricultural sector, there are not only benefits, but also major risks, in the medical field. We see a danger, for example, in the uncontrolled use of DNA testing. DNA tests are not services like any other. They may only be carried out after competent, expert, independent and individual counselling, and this counselling must cover medical, ethical, social, psychological and legal aspects. A year ago, our group commissioned an expert report on this issue. This report says that the European Union has competence in this area. Offering DNA testing is either a cross-border service, or DNA tests are products traded in the internal market. This is why we need standards in this area, quality standards and standards relating, for example, to counselling. The Commission has a task here, and I ask the Commission to do what the report says, namely to initiate legislation.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report by Mr Ortuondo Larrea is the final section of the package of measures on maritime safety. It is an important section as it relates to classification societies. I voted in favour of this report, which proposes the introduction of a certain uniformity amongst Member States in terms of quality and the expert capabilities of classification societies, whose recognition will henceforth be the preserve of the shared responsibility of the Member Sates and the European Commission. These proposals also step up the liability of classification societies by providing for financial sanctions and the suspension or withdrawal of their recognition in the event of accidents that may be attributable to them. The arraignment of the classification societies in the wake of the loss of the Erika in December 1999 recalls their vital role in evaluating and preventing the risks associated with the condition of ships. The navigable condition of a ship is the responsibility of the state whose flag the ship flies. I hope the involvement of the European Commission in recognising classification societies and the increased liability of the latter will make it possible to do away with flags of convenience altogether. From this perspective, these measures must be implemented without delay in the candidate countries, whose fleets must conform to the standards and safety criteria of the European Union. The problem of classification societies goes far beyond the borders of the European Union. The European Commission must therefore free up the resources to monitor the enforcement of the new measures by Member States and candidate countries alike. Finally, our common policy on maritime safety must be an international role model and the obligations we place on our ships must be extended to third-country fleets. Maritime safety must not simply be an issue arising out of a state of urgency in the wake of each new disaster that hits our shorelines, but the object of an internationally integrated and constant policy. - Preparation for the Nice European Council

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, great is the frustration and disappointment of the European Parliament, almost five years on from the Barcelona Declaration, at the lack of progress made in the implementation of the programmes and objectives it set out. Disappointment and frustration which are all the greater when we consider the substantial progress of European policies in other fields, for example regarding the East, Central Europe and the Balkans, and also relations between Europe and Latin America. It is obvious to all of us that the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership has to complement the European policy for the Mediterranean Basin. I would like to stress the basic points upon which we expect a detailed response from this debate: the clause which sets out the basis of the agreements, on respect for human rights, the undertaking to draw up ratification instruments for giving effect to the association agreements, and the development and acceleration of new linkages for a cooperation process with Libya, provided that the requisite political conditions are in evidence at the Cairo Conference on 3-4 April 2000. Mr President, I would also like to stress the need to forge ahead with objectives that facilitate a greater involvement of civil society in creating networks linking cities, ports, universities, trade associations, entrepreneurs and non-governmental organisations, for the INTERREG programmes to be used to promote balanced development with regard to trade and territory through the modernisation of economic structures, so that the MEDA programme, which has received such a disappointingly small amount of funding, can at last bear fruit. Finally, Mr President, may I say that the Union’s Mediterranean policy could become one of the common strategies laid down by Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union regarding foreign and security policy, and that we could also promote the political dimension of the issue through parliamentary debate.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, in the end we can thank three people for completing the Socrates programme. The most credit obviously goes to Mrs Pack. Maija Rask, the Finnish Minister of Education, also demonstrated passionate feelings during the night’s negotiations to reach conciliation. And everything was crowned by the diplomatic skills of Renzo Imbeni, chairman of the committee. It is excellent that we can now adopt this programme, which is so important for the citizens of Europe. At the same time, I would like to draw attention to the flaws I observed in the handling of multiannual programmes to be approved by means of the codecision procedure. There was no official cooperation between the Special Committee and the Committee on Budgets with regard to the second reading and conciliation. This weakens Parliament’s negotiating position, as agreement on the demands of Parliament for the financial perspectives can be called into question. In my opinion, there should be a review of the procedures with regard to these matters.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Solana, Commissioner, as has already been said, the next couple of hours will see the Security Council coming to a decision on the Iraq resolution. Let there be no doubt about the fact that Iraq must unconditionally comply with all the requirements made of it. Such is the EU's position, and it is one with whose substance I agree wholeheartedly. There is now justifiable concern about the way Iraq deploys weapons of mass destruction and makes them widely available. Saddam Hussein has already, on several occasions, demonstrated his readiness to deploy such weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The memories of all of us are still scarred by the Kurds of Halabja, who were killed by poison gas. The brutal persecution of the Shiites in the south of the country is no secret either. Weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the most diverse regimes and countries, whether one thinks of India or Pakistan or, lastly, of North Korea, which has, indeed, admitted diverting fissile material for nuclear weapons, a breach of international undertakings that amounts to an offensive aimed at getting the pressure off Iraq! In any case, weapons of mass destruction will only become an incalculable menace to the international community if the rulers with control of them are themselves unpredictable and menacing, as is without doubt true of Saddam Hussein. That is why the Security Council resolution must spell out the necessity of the UN inspectors being able to perform their duties unhindered, of the monitoring teams' powers being extended and of there being no repeat of the cat and mouse game we have seen before. If anyone is to make political visits to Iraq at this time, then it should be international weapons inspectors and nobody else – and I say this with reference to the visit to Iraq of the provincial governor of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, which is his third, and is superfluous and contrary to Austrian interests. Iraq is far too hazardous a minefield and also deserves better than to be used to satisfy neurotic political egos. Rather than solo acts, what is needed here is concerted action at EU level, which should be undertaken in partnership with the USA. The risk should also be calculable. We must avoid any escalation or any security vacuum affecting the whole of the Middle East. Looking further ahead, there is a need to work at removing the causes of crises, whether they are in Chechnya or in the Middle East, and you have my full support in doing that. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
We on this side whole-heartedly support the response of the United States, the European Union and its Member States and other countries to the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the development of a comprehensive multilateral strategy against terrorism. In recognising the determination of the European Union and its Member States to safeguard its citizens from acts of terrorism, we stress the need to reassure the public by striking the right balance between vigilance and enabling everyday life to continue. We consider that each Member State must carry out a complete reassessment of its approach to the security of infrastructure and installations, particularly the most risk-sensitive such as nuclear installations. We recognise there is genuine public concern about these issues but would like to emphasise the need to keep these matters in perspective. I would like to emphasise that the safety of nuclear plants and other such industrial installations is primarily a national competence and responsibility. In that context we look, for example, to the United Kingdom government to take all necessary short-term protective measures as well as to face up to the necessary longer-term decisions with regard to the disposal of radioactive waste. Clearly, the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States call for a reassessment of the risk of attack on installations that we have previously regarded as secure and I welcome the statement from the Commissioner. I only regret that it was not possible for Commissioner Loyola de Palacio to be able to speak to us – it had been our wish to hold this debate at the next part-session.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want to remind Mr Chichester, apropos of the earlier exchange on Sellafield, that my constituents along the east coast of Ireland, and in particular County Louth, are very concerned about emissions from Sellafield, especially marine emissions in Carlingford Lough which are rising steadily. BNFL were present at a hearing in the European Parliament in April and had to confirm under cross-examination from me that emissions were currently rising from Sellafield. This has a serious impact on another Member State. Indeed, we heard at the hearing of the impact on the Isle of Wight of emissions from Cap de la Hague. My own constituents and European citizens generally are right to be concerned at the impact of such nuclear technology on their own Member States. We heard in detail from, amongst others, the UK nuclear inspectorate chief Lawrence Williams, who attended the hearing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to say that I was here yesterday. I arrived at Parliament at 6 p.m. yesterday but unfortunately did not sign the attendance register because I was busy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, I intend to confine my comments to the conflict between India and Pakistan. Mr President-in-Office, you rightly noted in your speech that this conflict threatens to destabilise and endanger the whole region. Concern about this immense danger has brought all of us responsible for foreign policy in nearly all the groups to a common position, as expressed in the resolution on Seville. We call in this resolution for both countries to make every possible effort to deescalate the situation and join in constructive dialogue in a bid to resolve the conflict as quickly as possible. Both sides clearly have a responsibility to defuse the conflict, which is why I welcome the measures taken over the past few days by India, which has decided to lift the ban on Pakistani aeroplanes using Indian airspace, appoint a high commissioner for Islamabad and order its warships back to port. We also expect President Musharaf to continue and step up his efforts to stop the infiltration of terrorists via the line of control in Kashmir. If he honours the promises made in his speech on 12 January this year, then a huge step will have been made towards resolving the conflict. I was in Kashmir a few weeks ago and went to an Indian post 3 400 metres up on the line of control, so I know what I am talking about. The war against terrorism can in fact only be effectively waged on the Pakistani side. Pakistan is responsible not just for catching terrorists before they reach the border, but also for meting out appropriate punishment and taking them out of circulation. One last point which plays a very important part in the whole dispute is the need to strengthen democracy. India is a democracy and we hope that Pakistan will be too if free elections are held in the autumn and put a democratic government in power.

Political group: PSE