GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I want to refer to your expression of sympathy with the people of France who are affected by severe flooding. It was very appropriate that you should raise this matter yesterday morning. But you not only expressed sympathy, you also requested the Commission to provide some assistance. Sometimes in Parliament the right hand does not know what the left one is doing. A couple of years ago we took away the possibility of extending assistance to people in such instances in the European Union. We expressed the same sympathy with the Greeks and requested the same assistance, but there is no money available. We ought therefore in future to either provide the money and the conditions under which it is paid or cease to ask the Commission to give assistance. What we gave the Greeks was an empty cup. We are offering the same thing to the people of France.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, it is an insult to our conscience and political ethics that, after the military intervention by NATO and the European Union against Yugoslavia, under a humanitarian flag, as a result of the unforgivable ethnic cleansing by Yugoslavia against the Albanians, we are now remaining calm and accepting the violence against the Serbs, gypsies and other minorities, this time on the part of the Albanians, which, furthermore, is of an even higher proportion. Therefore, we think that, if the European Union does not condemn and put an end to this criminal behaviour, the conclusions would be clear: firstly, the European Union would become an accomplice in the killings of Serbs and gypsies organised by the criminal and mafia groups of the KLA; and secondly, it would demonstrate that the West has two different yardsticks; and thirdly, the impression would be given that the objective of the intervention was to destroy the Serbian people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, first of all I want to welcome the communication from Commissioner Reding. It must not be forgotten that sport in Europe was born of the oldest known truce, namely the sacred truce which gave rise to the Olympics. This means that it also has a political value of peace. Hundreds of thousands of young people, both male and female, start and develop their education through sport. I have a question concerning the last comment made by the Commissioner. In addition to being a social and training activity, sport is currently part of the world of big business and is actually one of the most important business activities. My question is as follows: Does the Commission intend the policy which must be developed on sport, particularly in view of the concentration of power which is occurring in the audiovisual media, to lead to a joint action between her Directorate-General and the one responsible for defending competition? I believe that this is one of the key questions for Europe and the world.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in Vietnam, there is a marked gulf between what is claimed to happen and what actually does as regards the freedom to practice a religion. The freedom to believe in a religion, or not to do so, is guaranteed. That is what Vietnam’s constitution claims; that is what the country has undertaken to do in a number of agreements, for example the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reality, though, is something else. Worshippers, priests, monks and eminent religious dignitaries are harassed, persecuted and locked up. State recognition is denied to such faith communities as the Montagnard Christians or the Hoa Hao Buddhists. Vietnam’s United Buddhist Church was banned in 1975; its Patriarch was interned for 21 years and was released only in 1998 following international pressure. Much hope was kindled when he met the Prime Minister in April of this year, but, following these conversations, the authorities stepped up their action against the adherents of this church and of other religions. In October, the Patriarch and his deputy were placed under house arrest, and many of their followers were sentenced to two-year terms of imprisonment. Cooperation between the European Union and Vietnam is founded upon the absence of any restriction on the exercise of human rights, as is stated in our cooperation agreement of 1985. The Group of the European People’s Party strongly condemns the latest acts of repression. If the Hanoi Government does not want to jeopardise its cooperation with the EU, legal status must be granted to all churches, and people interned for their religious beliefs must be set at liberty. We urge the Council and the Commission to use all diplomatic means to make religious freedom a reality in Vietnam. I ask you, Commissioner Kinnock, to use your personal influence to make this issue central to tomorrow’s meeting in Brussels between the representatives of Hanoi and those of the EU’s Commission in the EU-Vietnam Joint Committee. We believe that Parliament needs to send a delegation to Vietnam to examine the situation on the ground and have talks with office-holders of all religions. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, once again the drama unfolding in an African country is bringing Parliament face to face with the daily horrors of a bloody conflict and civil war. Certain kind souls are already pointing the finger at misgovernance and ethnic causes and indicating the culprits who should be eliminated. As with the oil of Congo-Brazzaville, Angola or Nigeria and the mineral resources of Chad, Niger or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and as in the latter generally or in Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the causes are indeed economic and the fight for control of the diamond-producing areas is the basis and reason for this continuing conflict. We are right to condemn the Revolutionary United Front or RUF for unilaterally resuming hostilities and for involving thousands of child-soldiers in the horror. However, the Sierra Leone army and its militias should also come in for criticism. We are right to condemn the use of diamonds by the RUF for war purposes. But what are the economic interests behind the government’s actions? We are right to condemn Liberia and Burkina Faso for their involvement in the arms trade and the recycling of diamonds. But who is selling arms to these countries and who is buying the diamonds? We are right to send in a UN Implementation Force and to want to disarm those who are fighting. Yet without proper distribution of the wealth of these countries, as in other African countries, and if we continue to allow mining and oil companies to pillage these countries and to fund the groups controlling these resources, our intervention will once again be in vain as it will not tackle the real causes.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The protection of consumer rights, just like the protection of health, the environment and safety at work, must not stop at national borders. Even if there were no EU, agreements would have to be made between different countries on common support for these rights. As always, in the end it comes down, however, to the content of the agreements and not the fact that everything is subject to the same regulations. You can level everything down by regulating as little as possible, scrapping existing national regulations and leaving as much as possible to voluntary cooperation of the companies involved. That may fit in well with the prevailing neo-liberal ideology, but then the protection does not amount to much and those who break the rules are not hindered in continuing their bad practices. In the decision-making on strategy and the Green Paper on European consumer policy, there is a great temptation to misuse consumer protection as a lever to bring about greater uniformity of regulations at EU level, without solving the real problems. I support the warning against this of the Consumer Association in the Netherlands. It has to be about combating unfair trading practices. Codes of conduct cannot substitute for legislation but are no more than detailed supplements. It has to be possible to enforce compliance with the supplements by all concerned. Fortunately the proposals of the rapporteurs, Mrs Thyssen, Mrs Patrie and Mr Whitehead are moving in more or less that direction. I voted wrongly on the conclusion to section 23.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, it must be recognised that the sinking of the Erika caused a wave of indignation at the time in European public opinion against the shortcomings of existing measures and the inability to prevent a catastrophe of this magnitude. This accident revealed the limitations of a political approach that tried to deal with maritime safety exclusively within the framework of international organisations like the IMO. Therefore the Commission and especially the Commissioner Mrs De Palacio must be congratulated on the excellent work they have done over this period. In one year they have tabled six proposals aiming at improving maritime safety, showing the great importance attached to this subject. I should also like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Ortuondo and Mr Watts, for the excellent work they have done. In any case, one year on, although it seems we could be quite satisfied with the way we have responded to the expectations of our citizens, I think we should already have given these measures final approval. In view of the urgency with which both this Parliament and the Council have dealt with this package of measures, one might think we have been able to react quickly. In reality, however, the debate on this subject has lasted quite a long time, and if we go to conciliation we shall still have to wait several months before we see these measures finally adopted, which will affect the credibility of the institutions we represent. And even though one year may seem a relatively short time by Community standards, we must agree with the Commission that perhaps we are jeopardising the effectiveness of the Erika package by discussing matters of secondary importance. The very extensive international safety regulations that today govern maritime transport have brought about a drastic reduction in accidents and pollution, and the measures we are debating today show the commitment of our institutions to enhancing vessel safety and the protection of the marine environment. Finally, I should like to keep up this sense of urgency in our work without resting on our laurels. I trust in this Parliament’s determination to move the Erika II package forward with the three new measures that complement those we are debating today, and I agree that the Council too must hurry up and support Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to start, in this highly topical debate, by supporting what Mr Sylla said yesterday before the order of business, i.e. that we must begin by combating manifestations of racism here in this House and that we must stamp out the racist language to which the far right wing of Parliament frequently resorts. However, whether some of us like it or not, Europe is already a multiracial and multicultural continent and no racist is going to stop people intermingling and intermarrying. Unfortunately, the ideologies to which millions of human lives were sacrificed are again taking centre stage. In fact, today, they are even worse, because apart from the basic racist ideology, they include religion and culture and propagandise racial, linguistic and religious purity together with genuine cultural identity. The sad thing is that the proponents of racial violence are young people up to the age of 20, most of whom have not completed their education or who do not have a profession. The package of measures which Commissioner Diamantopoulou has already presented is, in my view, an integrated proposal and may provide a convincing response to the racism and xenophobia which we are witnessing today in the European Union. That the state and political leaders have a responsibility goes without saying. However, the media still have an important role to play by promoting the variety and richness of contemporary multiracial and multicultural society and, instead of dramatising and distinguishing crime by immigrants from crime in general, could present the positive contribution made by immigrants. We also need to take immediate action to include the consequences of and the fight against racism in school curricula and in teacher training courses. We also need to mobilise political circles in the way suggested by the Commissioner and other honourable Members.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is due to state its position at second reading on the regulation that forms the legal base for the general framework of cooperation between the European Union and South Africa. In the meantime, as you will remember, the Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted the General Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation last September on the basis of the Kinnock report, whose trade component was implemented in January of this year. One of the fundamental components of the trade agreement concerns wines, and South Africa committed itself, under the terms of the agreement signed at the Berlin Summit in March 1999, immediately to cease using certain Community designations of origin, such as, specifically, “Port” and “Sherry”, which it had been using illegally for twelve years. Following a few incredibly intricate episodes, successive adjournments and time-wasting manoeuvres by the South African negotiators in accepting a regulatory text for this agreement, both parties finally agreed that a new draft of the regulations for this agreement on wines, which is due to enter into force by 1 September, is to be laid down by the end of June. I have, however, received information to the effect that the South Africans are still raising problems with regard to a draft which faithfully reflects the Berlin Agreement. They are trying to have these wine-producing issues covered by the WTO TRIPS dossier, which the European Union feels does not adequately protect Community designations. Furthermore, it appears to be a position that has been reached in conjunction with other New World wine-producing countries, given that the South Africans were negotiating bilateral agreements on wines with the European Union and then they suddenly changed their minds and wanted to postpone everything. In view of these issues, I cannot agree with the rapporteur when he asks Parliament, as proof of good faith, to approve this framework regulation as a matter of urgency, without linking it to the trade aspect of the General Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation. I do not agree because all the European Union’s behaviour up until now has been nothing but a huge demonstration of good faith, to the extent that, contrary to what had previously been laid down, we accepted the commercial implementation of the agreement without the regulations for the agreement on wines being established. The time has come to say enough is enough! Cooperation requires a positive attitude of good faith and responsibility on the part of both cooperating parties. As this has not been the case, I cannot, in all conscience, support the rapporteur’s position.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, rather than urging Iran to adopt a constructive attitude, I propose that we revise the text so that it reads as follows: Urges all coastal countries to adopt a constructive attitude as regards the delimitation...'. We have assured neutral experts that no one party to this border conflict or in this region can be specifically accused of obstruction and that they should all be urged to adopt a constructive attitude as regards the delimitation of boundaries in the Caspian. (Twelve Members having risen, the oral amendment was not taken into consideration) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0388/2001) by Mrs van den Burg, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the Commission communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions (COM(2001) 214 – C5-0533/2001 – 2001/2212(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Cashman. His report is based on a resolution that I tabled. Following on from Mr Titford's comments, today I tried to contact an undertaker friend to see if he had anything he wished to add tonight, but it seems he is on his holidays somewhere, as it so happens. We all accept that Mr Cashman’s excellent report is still and I do not mean to denigrate it - an aspirational report. It aspires to improving a situation that is indeed common. Every year I hear of one, two or even sometimes three cases where people experience problems in relation to the repatriation of remains. If we look at the dates of the various pieces of legislation that Mr Cashman has mentioned in his report, we see that they are all at least 30 years old. 30 years ago the world was very different. As Mr Cashman said, huge numbers of people are now moving about and spending holidays in other Member States. In two of the cases I have very recently heard about, the deceased had been killed under what were considered to be suspicious circumstances. Only this morning I had a phone call from the mother of a young man. She has been waiting 17 months to have his remains repatriated, and local courts have constantly changed their minds about the prosecution of the person believed to have been involved in the death of this young man. So, it is not just a question of the technical matters relating to repatriation. Very often, delays also occur in relation as the report mentions - to the circumstances of the death. I have just received a copy of one of the questions the Commissioner referred to. This was an answer to a question I tabled on 11 October 2000: 'the Commission, following extensive consultations with all parties concerned, concluded that detailed harmonisation of national rules in this area, over and above those that already exist, is neither desirable nor necessary and would not be justified from the point of view of subsidiarity or proportionality'. That is a depressing answer, Commissioner, so I hope very much that, in the provision of services directive you are proposing, you will recognise that this is an important issue, and above all that in these situations we are very often discussing a deeply human tragedy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Support for these measures from British Labour and Liberal Democrat Members comes at a time when our own government has had to admit that immigration systems are already at breaking point in the United Kingdom. These proposals come at a time of increased terror risk in the EU when Member States are already struggling to cope with the weight of the movement of people across the continent. British Conservatives cannot, therefore, support this report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I voted against this resolution. There were some good things in it, on enlargement and sustainability; but in relation to defence policy, I just could not accept the idea of welcoming the rapid reaction force and wanting it to be operational before the end of 2001. I do not support the militarisation of Europe. There are a number of aspects of this resolution, in relation also to defence budgets, which promote the militarisation of Europe. There is one point that I voted against in the roll-call votes, in relation to the US missile defence system. I feel the point was not made strongly enough. It seemed to accept the missile defence system. Just asking to be kept informed about it is not enough. We should not go along with the US missile defence system. We should oppose it at every opportunity rather than saying: just keep us informed about it. In general I feel this resolution points in the wrong direction. It supports the militarisation of Europe – something I do not support. I voted 'against'. Perhaps, if you put it to me again, under a lot of pressure, I would change my mind, just as the Irish Government hopes the Irish people will do with regard to the Nice Treaty.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, like Mr Bolkestein I would like to thank Mr Andria for his hard work on this most important of subjects. I agree with the Commissioner and the rapporteur that it is very important to remove technical and other barriers to cross-border clearing and settlement in Europe. The Commission and the European Union can play a constructive role in facilitating cross-border clearing and settlement as a vital part of creating a single market in financial services. There are certain points upon which Group opinion is divided, in particular point 11. It is not necessary to separate so-called core and value-added services, contrary to the view of the rapporteur. It is vital to price these different services transparently, so that when people are purchasing they know exactly which service they are buying and which they are not. It is also necessary to ensure that suitable risk management schemes are in place so that if there is a problem with one service there is no contagion between the so-called core services and value-added services. A law which said that a financial institution could only create or provide a certain core service and was not allowed to diversify into others would be too big an intervention in the market. I myself and many in the group therefore support a small amendment to Mr Andria's report on that point. I have reservations about the proposal that we should move to a directive at this point. We might well need to look at a directive in the future but it may be premature to decide now whether a directive is necessary. There may be many other ways in which the European Union and the European Commission can facilitate cross-border clearing and settlement, without necessarily having to resort to a hard law solution. Finally, the only other point of substance where I have a slightly different view from Mr Andria is the suggestion that we should prescribe that clearing and settlement systems are based on a 'not for profit' principle. I appreciate that Mr Andria has moved on this and has compromised and added the facility for allowing the services to make proper investments, but we should not prescribe a non-profit status and compel the markets to adopt this model. There are great merits in opting for user-owned systems. These are very good ways to ensure that the clearing and settlement service provides an excellent service to its users, but I am not really sure that we should prescribe on that issue. We certainly should not write in at this stage the requirement that these services must be managed on a 'not for profit' basis. It is important to allow firms to innovate and to invest, and a certain amount of profit generation is necessary to allow that investment. I welcome much of Mr Andria's report, with those three minor reservations. In particular we should not prejudge the market at this stage. We should allow and encourage the market to produce its own solutions, to produce market-led solutions, although I can see that there are merits in encouraging user-owned systems, because looking around the European Union we can see a number of systems which are working well on a user-owned basis.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, am I right in thinking that there will be an opportunity for questioning the Commissioner under the catch-the-eye procedure at the end of his statement? You did not actually say so at the beginning, but I very much hope that I and other colleagues here will have the opportunity to do so.

Political group: PPE-DE