GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, yesterday, Mr Nielson stood here and reported on the situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was on the list of forgotten countries before 11 September. Now, however, the situation has become all but catastrophic. The World Bank has produced a report showing that between 20000 and 40 000 children per day will die of hunger because of the economic recession caused by the events of 11 September. In the EU’s Member States, we have received a report to the effect that foreigners and refugees are being persecuted. This is shown by the Monitoring Centre on Racism in its report. We are, of course, all appalled at what happened on 11 September, but what these events showed us first and foremost was, of course, that the world has shrunk and that no one is safe. The American missile shield would not have helped in this situation. Nor did all the American military hardware help, either. Now, we are moving on to talk about the need to strengthen democracy and dialogue. However, the anti-terrorism package we have debated – not the one concerning the economy, but the other – reeks of distrust. The ambition to strengthen the police and intelligence services completely overshadows the fight to strengthen human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We will not accept increased powers, either for Europol or the intelligence services, until we have got them under democratic control. Combating terrorism must not overshadow freedoms of expression and assembly. I should like to ask whether there is anyone who believes that our world will become safer when we prohibit certain organisations. Terrorism, killing, robbery and the destruction of property are to be forbidden, Well, they are already forbidden. Those responsible must be caught, and they must be punished. I do not wish to defend anti-democratic organisations, but the question is whether our world will become safer if these organisations go underground and are made illegal. There are limits to the number of problems that can be solved by legislation alone, and I think that the first package is evidence of more haste, less speed. Our task must be to remove the basis for terrorism. I therefore think that the Troika initiative was a step in the right direction and one that favoured dialogue and the creation of a broad alliance to combat terrorism. However, there are problems in the alliance. When China demands, as a condition of its being a part of the alliance, that we close our eyes to what is happening in Tibet; when Russia demands that we close our eyes to events in Chechnya; when Turkey demands that we close our eyes to the fate of the Kurds; and when Israel demands that we close our eyes to the situation of the Palestinians, then we do not have a safe world. There must be security for all, including oppressed people and also the 20 000 to 40 000 children who will die of hunger next year.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, if anyone needs any kind of proof that there is something seriously wrong with the continuing sanctions against Iraq, we just have to look at the number of resignations of high-profile people within the United Nations. We can also note the words of Mary Robinson who has strongly condemned what is going on in relation to the sanctions. What is happening is that victims, innocent people, women and children, people without any power, without any kind of control whatsoever, are being persecuted. There is a war against the Iraqi people on which little concern has been focused, and I am glad that some people from Parliament have actually visited Iraq to see for themselves. It is extremely important. The illegal bombing by the US and Britain, which is not covered by any UN Security Council resolution, has no mandate whatsoever and is absolutely outrageous: it should not be allowed to continue. How we can allow illegal bombing like this to continue is just beyond credibility. The infrastructure in Iraq has been completely decimated. Again, the victims here are innocent people who have no power whatsoever. I also have to congratulate here some organisations in our communities who are doing something or are trying to raise awareness, and here I would mention those voices in the wilderness who are the sanction breakers – I think they are playing a major role and I would like to voice my support here for them. We also have to look at the fact that in any kind of future measures against Iraq we should focus on the enhancement of human rights and democracy, and we should also look at the protection of the Kurds and in the north and the Shi'ites in the south in terms of guaranteeing them some sort of autonomy. We cannot lose sight of them either.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the transformation of the Parliamentary Forum on the agenda for the Naples Summit on 2 and 3 December into a Parliamentary Assembly will be an extremely significant political development, as the House has seen from the ACP experience. The Parliamentary Assembly is an instrument for political cooperation which both reminds the Member States of their responsibilities precisely through parliamentary measures and gathers strength for new measures. The next step in Naples must be swift action on the part of the Council to implement the decisions already taken during the Valencia Ministerial Conference, especially the initiatives based on culture and dialogue between societies – both bilateral and multilateral initiatives – in order to reinvigorate the neighbourhood policy which is the key to the balance and development of the Mediterranean area. The transformed institution will, moreover, have to adopt a working model for which we can all see the need. Our decisions must be put into practice for, in this area, we must admit that we have failed somewhat. If we consider the Barcelona process, Meda, Meda II and the Valencia Conference, and the past and present expectations raised by these developments, it may be that we have failed somewhat in implementing all the decisions taken. A great deal of work has been accomplished but, without a doubt, there is still some to be completed, and the Assembly is clearly the right body to verify whether we have observed and achieved the objectives we set ourselves, particularly as regards the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, for a genuine, coherent, effective Euro-Mediterranean Partnership must fully incorporate not just the social and economic dimensions but respect for and promotion of human rights as well. Point by point, we would like to mention a number of developments that must be included on the agenda and seen as priorities. Firstly, a programme for supportive cooperation between the two shores of the Mediterranean in the fight against terrorism and international organised crime. We need to introduce specific measures to stem this flow of – often forced – migration, which is a tragedy for mankind. Secondly, we need to verify the forms of development of the section provided by the EIB for the Mediterranean and the Middle East as an instrument for supporting the goals set by the new strategy, with the financial participation of other Mediterranean countries; I would point out that this Assembly expected a bank to be an active operator in the area. Thirdly, we need to insist on the development of south-south relations. In my opinion, the Agadir agreement is an important means of creating a genuine free trade area. Fourthly, the procedures of the MEDA regulation need to be streamlined in order to increase the effectiveness of the project.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner, once again, this evening, you have heard many Members express dissatisfaction for a number of different reasons, and these are exacerbated by the problems in the North Sea and Galicia – and we send the people of these regions our heartfelt sympathy – although I do not feel that Mr Nogueira’s approach was the most appropriate way to defend the cause of Galicia; I would therefore call upon the other Members to be more objective and aware of the fact that this is, in actual fact, a Europe-wide issue. There is something I really do fail to understand, however, Commissioner. We have the same perspectives and goals and we understand the concerns expressed by the Commission: we understand its concerns regarding the conservation of stocks; we understand its concerns about not increasing fishing effort. Parliament is on your side. We even agree on providing incentives for scrapping and, therefore, encouraging some fishermen to leave the fisheries sector. I genuinely fail to understand, however, why it is that we cannot succeed in coming to an agreement. You continue to deny that modernisation, specifically modernisation of the fleet, is essential, even though, in our countries, fishing vessels provide the most unliveable working conditions still existing in Europe. Then the other point is the reliability of the scientific data, which we have mentioned several times. Now, I do not believe that an agreement cannot be reached between Parliament and the Commission, given that our goals are the same. I would add just one thing, Commissioner: consider the political implications if we were to fail in this matter. We are on the eve of redefining the Europe we want, and we want it to be more intergovernmental and more Community-based. If you do not succeed in this, it will be evidence that more Community-based organisation means a European Union which is more removed from the citizens and less attentive to their concerns. I do not believe that we will fail, but we must fight this battle together, to ensure that everything we have built up over the past 50 years is not lost.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have already expressed my views, this year, on the proposal for an amendment of the 1991 directive on money laundering. The European Parliament had already pinpointed the omissions in this directive, and the Commission recently tabled a proposal taking Parliament’s comments into consideration. The Council’s common position has not been officially recognised. The report under discussion today is a direct result of the commitment made at the European Council in Tampere, in October 1999, to combat this scourge of money laundering which amounts to between 2 and 5% of the world’s GDP every year. The French Presidency made this one of the priorities on its agenda, and has therefore planned a set of legislative measures to create a legal framework broad enough to encompass the crime of money laundering. We have had proposals, firstly, to extend Europol’s competence to cover money laundering – the Karamanou report – and, secondly, for a raft of measures to improve international cooperation in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters – the Roure report. These two reports were put to the vote today, and I voted in favour of them. The Marinho report now seeks to extend the principle of the mutual recognition of national measures for the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime, established by the Joint Action 98/699/JHA in 1998, to decisions in the pre-court phase, especially those enabling the competent authorities to take rapid action to obtain evidence and seize easily transportable assets. These proactive measures are absolutely essential in order to combat this phenomenon, which has continually grown and taken on an international dimension. As Conclusion 51 of the Tampere European Council states, “Money laundering is at the very heart of organised crime. It should be rooted out wherever it occurs.” I therefore voted in favour of the Marinho report, and in support of the endeavours of the French Presidency.

Political group: PSE
I voted for the Liese report because it is a moderately pro-science position, as voted. My mother died of Parkinson's disease and I watched the long-term degeneration of her life. I hope that future research will help to combat this dreadful condition. My vote is for my mother, and my colleague Nicholas Bethel.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Damião for all her work and I hope that she will get well soon. Every year 4 500 people die from asbestos-related diseases in the UK alone. It is predicted that 250 000 will die in the European Union of these diseases in the next 35 years. Medical and scientific evidence demonstrates that there is a real need for this directive. I am delighted that the production and marketing of asbestos will be banned across the EU from 2005. Thankfully, it has already been banned in the UK. However, there are still millions of tonnes of asbestos in Europe's buildings throughout the European Union. Those buildings will have to be demolished at some point, and the asbestos will have to be removed, repaired or maintained, with the consequent effect on the health and safety of all those asbestos workers. I welcome the fact that this directive will lower the exposure limit values for asbestos. I emphatically support the three amendments Mr Hughes has talked about. However, I was extremely disappointed that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs changed its mind after first reading; my amendments, which were not accepted, would have halved the exposure limit value. The committee's reasoning, as I understand it, was that, since the Council had not accepted my amendments, there was no point in going to conciliation as it would not have accepted them in future. However, we know from experience that the Council quite often changes it mind during the conciliation procedure, and it seems a great shame that we did not pursue those amendments. Had it saved just one asbestos worker's life, it would have been worth it. Nevertheless, I decided against retabling the amendments because I did not have the support of the Committee on Employment or the other groups in this House. Even though I would have liked to have seen the directive go further, it is still a very good directive and will save asbestos workers' lives across the EU. For that reason, I will advise my group to vote for this directive, because it is greatly needed.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I rise on a matter concerning the meeting today of the College of Commissioners, under Rule 38 or 64. I would like to request that Commissioner Lamy makes an emergency statement to this House as to why he is avoiding parliamentary scrutiny on a paper known as 'everything but arms'. This has profound implications for this House, for ACP countries and for Europe as a whole. I say profound implications because this House wants more and more democratic accountability. This particular issue will not only affect this House, but most of the European Member States, particularly those that have such products as bananas – which are very topical – rice and sugar. Mr Lamy should make this statement today to make sure that we do have democratic accountability. It appears that he has no wish to discuss this issue with Parliament. It is of great importance.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a great deal has already been said and I am not about to lapse into repetition. I would like to congratulate Mrs Theorin for broaching a subject at European level that we have rarely discussed. When I listen to the various comments made, I find myself agreeing with those who recommend that we take a look at our priorities and then limit the number of aims we want to achieve. There is a great deal in the report and we will not be able to do everything straightaway. I will mention several of my own priorities. Firstly, we must urge all the Member States to ratify the Treaty of Rome. Remarkably few have done so up to now; only two or three, so I am told. So achieving that alone would be a start. It is recognised in this Treaty that rape committed during wars, and all the consequences thereof, must be regarded as a war crime. Perhaps that is exactly what you would expect in this day and age, but it certainly was not the norm up until very recently, nor did it happen as a matter of course. Secondly, on 31 October a resolution was approved in the Security Council, namely resolution 1325, which ‘calls for broad participation of women in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction'. I am referring to the Security Council of the United Nations. I think it would be worthwhile, under the circumstances, for the European Union to take a look at what points were raised too, because they have been adopted within the United Nations, and so they must also be taken on board at European level. Around eighteen points were raised, which is quite a few. Once again, my congratulations, and let us hope that something comes of it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today also – International Women’s Day – I would like to make an appeal to this House. I am not going to talk about discrimination – other Members have done that already – but I will say that I believe violence against women is a problem throughout the world, and particularly in my State, and that both the institutions and society must accept that it is necessary to resolve it. I would ask this House for a minute’s silence, both for the 13 women who have died already this year in Spain and for those who have been murdered elsewhere in the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I just want to have it confirmed to everyone beyond all doubt that the debate by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities concerning questions of equality and the Beijing Action Platform will continue at three o’clock. I want this confirmed so that everyone knows about it, because it was previously intended to continue the debate later. However, we must inform all Members of the European Parliament of this so that everyone can be here by three o’clock.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we need new regulation on labelling and traceability and it must be as rigorous as possible. But my key point is that even if tough new rules are adopted tomorrow, as we hope, this should not be seen as a green light to lift the de facto moratorium. These directives do not address properly the very real risk of contamination of non-GM and organic agriculture with GM varieties. Nor do they provide for liability rules to cover farmers who are victims of such contamination. Research by the Commission, by the European Environment Agency and by the Department for Environment in my own country all conclude that licensing GM crops will almost inevitably lead to widespread contamination of non-GM crops. If we are to ensure that the public has the right to choose to reject GM we must ensure not only that GM is labelled, but also that non-GM continues to exist. Unless we can address the problem of contamination, that cannot be guaranteed. I do not believe Mr Fischler's guidelines will be adequate. The moratorium therefore must stay in place. Finally, there are a number of national consultation processes going on in the Member States on GM crops. It is vital that those processes are taken seriously. It is therefore a matter of much regret that the UK Government's process has been under-funded and badly publicised. Its deadline must be extended if we are not to conclude that government ministers have already decided in favour of GM cultivation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to read out a few lines: “in 1975 Indonesia took control of Timor, beginning the oppression which led to the death of a third of the population through hunger, epidemics, war and a reign of terror.” This is not a piece of journalism or a summary, but the statement that was made when Ximenes Belo and José Ramos Horta were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on 11 November 1996. The holocaust which led to the death of 250,000 people in East Timor is already history, with the last ten thousand killed over recent weeks. Regarding this holocaust, I do not think that our institution or any European citizen can afford to feel astonished: we do not have the right to, we have definitively lost our innocence. For a long time, the international community has allowed the so-called development dictatorships to survive, from Indonesia to the Chile of the Chicago Boys, to China and Korea, those countries where, for the sake of macro-economics, we have tolerated market interests prevailing over the interests of human rights. We have tolerated intolerance and violence. I hope that our guilt will not now be added to the international community’s guilt. I am happy that the Council has decided on a common position, a symbolic four-month embargo on arms, ammunition and military equipment. I hope that this embargo will be extended to supplies now being prepared so that we can avoid feeling even more remorse in the future. I want to point out that at this time, my indignation has nothing to do with the language that the inhabitants of East Timor speak. My problem is that for twenty-five years, the population of East Timor has not had a voice. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a fiscal responsibility for Member States is a must, inside or outside the eurozone. It would be disastrous for us to act recklessly and even worse for countries to consider themselves above an agreement which disciplines us all for the sake of a stable eurozone. Having said that, I am and have always been in favour of an intelligent and flexible interpretation. Clearly there is room for improvement. I am sure the Commission recognises this. The economic cycle calls for more than an annual disapproval. Monitoring over such a short period of time is incompatible with real-time analysis. I am sympathetic to Mr Santos' view that the cyclically adjusted deficit approved over the economic cycle is both sensible and prudent. Growth and stability are twin pillars. The Lisbon Summit gave voice to the possibility of a single market which was matched by investment in training and release of capital through the use of the financial services action plan, complemented by the risk capital action plan. However, we are still falling behind competitively. There are no high walls to keep the market out. The EU is increasingly in danger of being left out. The risk to the Community of not tackling substantial structural reforms is too great to be ignored. If we delay now, that will worsen, not ameliorate, economic downturns. Today's discussions have been entertaining and humorous in many respects. In particular I thank Mr Olle Schmidt for the view that Sweden will join the euro and hopefully set a very good example for the UK, which will join very shortly afterwards.

Political group: PSE
I strongly oppose Mr Daul's report on the sugar market which aims to extend the existing system, unchanged, until 2006. I find the Commission's dose of sugar market reforms much sweeter to swallow. Reform of the sugar market is crucial to tackle over production and high prices on the EU market. Moreover, it is necessary to comply with WTO rules. It is important for European consumers and for the European taxpayer. I want to see the production quota cut by 115 000 tonnes each year and to abolish the reimbursement of storage cuts. Drastic changes are needed in 2003 when the Commission will review the cereal, oilseeds and dairy sector. We need to make cuts in the agricultural budget which is in dire need of reform. The bottom line is that the common agricultural policy must be radically overhauled and reformed. We waste far too much of the taxpayer's money on this budget and we must look carefully at restructuring and reforming our agricultural policy across the EU. I do not support this report which far from being sweet, leaves a rather bitter taste. - Kirkhope Report (A5-0069/2001)

Political group: PSE