GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, any woman or man who, at any time in the course of the last few months, has bought any diamonds must have felt concerned that these might have come from Sierra Leone or Angola and must have wondered whether, in buying them, they had financed the mutilation of children or the drugging of child soldiers or had supported the abduction of the latter from UNICEF’s rehabilitation camps. We can condemn and we can make demands, but what we need to do, and can do, as a Parliament, is to come up with new ideas. As was said earlier, we need a long-term strategy for Africa but also a Schuman-style plan for the joint management of those of Africa’s resources which are being fought over, for example in Sierra Leone or in the Congo, so that the struggle does not lead to conflicts with fundamentally undemocratic warlords. What do we now have to learn, fifty years after 9 May 1950, that is to say fifty years after the Schuman Plan? We need an equivalent plan for Africa’s resources, just as we need a movement in opposition to the diamond trade. I feel that, from a human point of view, this is much more important than any amount of movements in opposition to the fur trade.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the fight against terrorism has also led to excessive military strikes and an excess of justifiable defence, which can easily defeat their purpose. For that reason it is extremely important for the European Union and its Council of Ministers to act consistently and remain realistic and cool-headed in the way they approach these problems. That is especially true now that we have our attitude to the charter of the International Criminal Court as well as peacekeeping in Bosnia to consider. This is entirely relevant to the question we are debating today.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would just like to ask all those who stood up to request checking the quorum what they think of the fact that, thanks to their action, we are not now going to vote on emergency aid measures for Ethiopia. In all honesty, I think we need to make journalists aware of what we think of this kind of action. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like, first of all, to thank Commissioner Patten for the high quality of his speech, and also those Members who have argued unambiguously in favour of disarming Iraq by means of inspections and peaceful avenues. Barbarity cannot be combated with barbarity, and war, whether we like it or not, is a form of barbarity. It is also an old-fashioned way of settling conflicts. Over a year ago, the President of the United States described as rogue states a certain number of countries suspected of having at their disposal, for the purposes of conquest, weapons of mass destruction which threatened world peace. Eliminating weapons of mass destruction is certainly a desirable objective that we should all try to achieve in the context of the United Nations and, in particular, in the context of the non-proliferation treaty. Yet how can we explain to the people of the countries described as rogue states that weapons of mass destruction are bad when they belong to those countries but that they are good when they belong to so-called ‘virtuous’ states? These virtuous states lie, in particular, in Europe, but there is also the United States, whose army is ready to use such weapons of mass destruction, in other words tactical nuclear weapons, in the war that they want to launch in Iraq. This is a complete contradiction and, in terms of international law, it is a further black mark against the US Government. If I wanted to sustain Mr Bush’s metaphor, I would say that the US State is a super-rogue. However, I shall not do so, because that would be to insult the American people, and I do not want us to end up insulting one another. Last week, in fact, we had an opportunity to meet US elected representatives who are openly opposed to the use of force. They are demonstrating against the war alongside their fellow citizens and they constitute, in my opinion, the great majority of public opinion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission's draft directive is meant to provide a minimum level of protection in the Member States for such third-country nationals as are actually in need of protection. This implies, though, that secondary migration, in other words, the misuse of asylum to which Mr Vitorino referred, will thereby be kept under control. So, Mrs Lambert, the prime requirement when it comes to dealing with economic migrants is support for impoverished countries, in order to prevent human resources from haemorrhaging away through emigration and to promote economic growth with a better quality of life for the people. The subject of asylum is seen as sensitive in all the Member States, as is shown by the fact that it has been impossible, to date, to get any of the previous draft directives on this subject adopted by the Council. I therefore regard the rapporteur's approach, which involves extending the already very far-reaching Commission proposal still further, as being quite utterly wrong. It may soothe our own conscience to grant asylum also on economic grounds, but it does not help this Parliament to be taken seriously in our Member States. The proposals for extending the scope of asylum to citizens of the European Union show how some MEPs regard ideologies as more important than sensible solutions. Solutions, though, are what the citizens of our countries have every right to expect. We and the people in our Member States are of one mind in believing that those who are persecuted must be given humanitarian aid. This does not mean, however, that the granting of asylum can solve all this world's social, economic or environmental problems. On the contrary, that leads to the great benefit of the right to asylum being nullified. We, the representatives of the people, have the task of finding pragmatic solutions, on the one hand for the European Union, and on the other for the asylum-seekers. A forward-looking asylum policy in the EU must also take into account the circumstances and needs of the people in our Member States. The report before us does nothing of the sort, and so the Group rejects it. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, I see a need for discussion of four areas that are of great importance to us. The first is external trade. The next round of WTO talks is imminent. I believe that the trend towards moving from the promotion of products to the promotion of quality is one that is especially important and will be of very great significance for Europe. Secondly, the WTO is in urgent need of a parliamentary assembly to accompany it. We can observe how pressure on the part of NGOs is constantly increasing, and how a political debate on globalisation issues is becoming ever more important. Thirdly, we in this House must ourselves step up our efforts in order to meet the challenges involved in preparing the WTO to face the future. At the end of the day, this issue will decisively affect some 20% of jobs in the European Union. On the subject of industry, I want to record the fact that support for border regions has been very successful, especially that given to small and medium-sized enterprises. The B5-510 budget line would also be very well suited to increasing the budget for the ‘Arge 28’ working community of chambers of commerce. I think it very sensible that discussions have touched on this. A further factor is that consideration is given, in the fourth multiannual programme, to the various modes of financing Basle II. I believe these programmes to be of great importance for the future. In particular, we want to start up a preparatory operation for next year, in order to give particular help in this area to small and medium-sized enterprises in meeting the requirements of Basle II. Turning to research and development, the earmarking for SMEs is especially laudable, and I believe that the EUR 3 billion to be spent in the coming year can also give an impetus to improved economic development. My fourth and final point has to do with intelligent energy. Here too, I believe, we have taken a step in the right direction as regards the supply, safety and efficiency of energy, with especial consideration for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr Commissioner, I should first like to offer my warmest congratulations to the Finnish Presidency, Madam Foreign Minister and her colleagues on their lucid and precisely-formulated programme, which may not be one imbued with great vision, but which is nevertheless very forward-looking. It is exactly what we need. There will be more than enough problems to solve, the list is already before us, but best efforts have been made to this end. I should like to stress the following, further to the points made by Mr Commissioner Fischler, giving particular attention to the two matters of Turkey and reconstruction in Yugoslavia. Firstly, I consider that it is right that as far as actual reconstruction work is concerned, particularly in Kosovo, the decisions should be taken on site. That is a line of argument that this Parliament has represented and which we have defended, namely that greater local autonomy should be devolved to the area where the reconstruction work is actually to take place. However, and I am probably prepared to go further than you are in this respect, Mr Commissioner, I believe that Greece and Thessaloniki would be a good location when it comes to aid for reconstruction in general for the Balkans or South-Eastern Europe, and particularly in co-operation with Mr Hombach. This work cannot be undertaken in Pristina alone, both in view of infrastructure and political relations. People may well say that is a bad compromise. I don't believe it is. I believe that they are two different things, but that they must be closely interwoven. But this decision is entirely reasonable, on the one hand Pristina for the actual reconstruction aid and, on the other, Thessaloniki. Turning now to my second point, which is Turkey, I believe that we must state in a clear and unambiguous fashion that as far as we are concerned, the Öçalan case is not just about one man threatened with the death penalty, but rather we repudiate the death penalty in general. He is a symbol for many others, for example Akim Birdal or others too, who are in prison, some of whom have not had legal proceedings taken against them, and some whose health is greatly impaired. Turkey must at last demonstrate respect for human rights, for full democracy, particularly as regards the Kurdish question. We do not support terrorism in either word or deed. We support a political solution for Turkey; this is necessary in every sense, and I hope that the Finnish Presidency too will succeed in making this clear to Turkey. Yes, there is a road that leads to Europe and there is also a road that leads to the European Union for Turkey, and the same rules apply to Turkey as apply to Latvia, Bratislava and Slovenia. If Turkey is prepared to recognise these rules, then there is a clear and unambiguous road leading to Europe, but that means showing respect for democracy and showing respect for human rights. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like to say at the outset that I agree with those who have said that we have to look to the future. However, what others have said here today, that we must take stock of what happened, is equally important. My first point is that we should not waver in our continuing commitment to multilateral trade rules. We arrived in Cancún with an extremely overloaded agenda: ministers had enormous difficulty grappling with too many complex, unresolved issues. The process, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. The whole process of those few days was virtually wasted until Saturday when the revised text appeared, to the consternation of developing countries. There was a real sense when we arrived in Cancún – as confirmed by this revised text – that the vision, promise and ambition of Doha was being seriously threatened, because matters of substance on agriculture, cotton and the new issues, which are important to developing countries, simply were not being addressed. We have to acknowledge very clearly what the perception of developing countries is. It is not good enough to come here and say that the developing countries were asking for too much. They should be insulted by the implication that NGOs were able to manipulate and manage their opinions in the way that some have said. In view of the proximity of the December date for the meeting in Geneva, I would like to ask, Commissioner, what kind of bridge-building and confidence-building you are engaged in at this time – having just had a moment to catch your breath after Cancún – to try to ensure that we have some success there? Finally, on the Singapore issues: are you aware, Commissioner, that on Thursday the DTI Minister in the UK said that she would be seeking a meeting with you on the Singapore issues to ensure that you stick to the position that was taken in Cancún and that we will no longer press for negotiations at the WTO on investment and competition? Are you aware that the British Minister said this in the House of Commons and do you expect your mandates to change on the basis of this kind of statement?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, this is indeed an issue of the utmost importance. The relationship between poverty and low levels of development and sexual and reproductive health is very close and makes it incumbent on us to adopt measures that will enable us to end or at least to mitigate the extremely worrying situations we are seeing today in this field which, unfortunately, are growing worse. Hence the importance of this proposal for a regulation and the report by Mrs Sandbaek. I must point out, with regard to this report, the rapporteur’s efforts to improve and to achieve a compromise, even at first reading, which enabled a broad consensus to be achieved on the proposals we are studying today. These efforts are all the more noteworthy because of the vague suspicions and frustrated attempts to include groundless justifications in the guidelines in question. Fortunately, the rapporteur, the political groups, the other committees involved and also Commissioner Poul Nielson, and everyone who has worked on this issue have been able to focus on the essential and I am sure that plenary will adopt the same approach. The essential lies in what has been acknowledged by the various international conferences on population and development, in understanding that access to reproductive and sexual health services forms a crucial part of the fight for development and against poverty and consequently the prevention of communicable diseases such as AIDS. Nor should it be swept under the carpet in this context that pregnancy and childbirth are the main causes of death and disability of women in less-developed countries. Nor should it be forgotten that a major proportion of maternity-linked deaths in those countries are closely linked to abortions carried out in unsafe conditions. These are undeniable and enormously serious occurrences that must be ended by means of appropriate measures, such as those now being responsibly proposed. This is also why means are also necessary and these have been clearly insufficient. This is why it is essential to make an effort, with the European Union leading the way. This is also why I believe it is crucial for Parliament, in accordance with its powers and responsibilities, and in the spirit of consensus and balance, to now earmark the amount proposed for this purpose. IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCAVice-President

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as has already been stated, there are 400 000 multiple sclerosis sufferers across the whole of the European Union, but it has taken only one today to get this debate, a remarkable young women who has already been mentioned, Louise McVay, who is in the gallery at the moment. It demonstrates what tenacity can achieve. I am also pleased that it is on the agenda during the European Year of People with Disabilities. I join others in congratulating the rapporteur for such a wide-ranging report. It talks about equal access to health care. There are differences within Member States and across the whole of the European Union. Some drugs like beta interferon, which can help some MS sufferers, are not widely available. Multiple sclerosis research should also be covered in the seventh framework directive. I am very disappointed – a lot of people are – that the sixth framework directive is not living up to the commitment that was made to mainstream disability issues. We must also ensure that young disabled people – that includes people with MS – do not end up being cared for alongside elderly people. That is why we must work towards independent living and why it is so important that the employment directive is fully implemented in all Member States. I am sorry to say that the deadline of 3 December this year has been missed by many Member States. We must take this opportunity now to ensure that does not continue, and we must get a specific disability directive. I was very pleased that the Commissioner mentioned that in her speech in Rome closing the European Year. Let us hope that we now get that timetable.

Political group: ELDR
This proposal for a directive has my vote because it represents a major step forwards and makes a valuable contribution to the creation of a more coherent Community policy in the field of immigration. It is an attempt to define the status of long-term resident, because we all recognise the need for the European Union to reach a compromise on harmonising the situation of citizens of third countries residing legally and permanently in a Member State, in which they must be guaranteed legal, economic and social rights on a par with those enjoyed by the Union’s own citizens. This status will be obtainable after five continuous years of legal residence, at the request of the interested party, who must have financial resources and sickness insurance, so that he or she does not become a burden on the Member State, and as long as the applicant’s behaviour poses no threat to public order or to domestic security. On the other hand, once this status has been granted, the individual will be guaranteed a set of rights, such as the right to work, to education, social security, healthcare and access to goods and services, etc., thereby making this a real instrument for integration into the society in which the individual lives. It is worth emphasising once again the importance of creating a more energetic policy for integration, which is crucial to promoting greater economic and social cohesion and to preventing discrimination and racism. Nevertheless, we must also stress the fact that genuine integration requires efforts on both sides. Furthermore, I welcome the series of procedural guarantees established in this proposal for immigrants who are anxious to be granted this status and which will enable us to prevent potential abusive behaviour by the competent authorities of the Member States.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Piétrasanta, and the Commission itself, because of all the MEDA programmes that have been presented on this subject, of all the proposals, this is perhaps the most realistic and practical and, to a large extent, the one which demonstrates that it is dealing with reality. In this regard, for example, I believe that for the first time we have distinguished terrorism as such, as an act that is distinct from government responses – which should also be condemned. Terrorism has been identified as a phenomenon that should be condemned in its own right and eradicated. It is very interesting that the road map and other measures to support Iraqi integrity have been raised. However, I would like to say, and in this I agree with Mr Piétrasanta, that our Mediterranean policy has a number of black holes or black spots and is essentially unbalanced. I feel we need to make an effort to render it more coherent. For example, like Mr Piétrasanta, I feel there has been very little investment in capacity building and the structure of certain administrative bodies that could achieve democracy. Given the structure of the countries, and of many of their economic administration services, amongst others, it is very difficult, because democracy does not consist of holding elections, but of building an entire system, which needs to be far more visible and systematic. Furthermore, we need to help the Mediterranean countries with which we are going to cooperate, and which receive a great deal of aid, to understand that the aid must go hand in hand with a deep sense of responsibility, within game rules that do not allow maximum, but minimum tolerance. I am referring, for example, to the administration of the funds received, just as other funds might often also be misused or used to finance oppression. I believe we need to show that democracy means a consolidated, transparent State. Without this there can be no democracy, let us not delude ourselves. I would say the same for the Assembly we are trying to create. We must be demanding and set democratic conditions that must be fulfilled. Otherwise we will only achieve unbalanced representation.

Political group: PPE-DE