GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, firstly I should like to apologise for not participating in the debate earlier on account of some sad events with my stagiaire. I am satisfied that we are finally taking the initiative and discussing Moldova. The tried to do this back in January. Everything that Mrs Schröder said is true. We have before us a very difficult situation which could lead to developments similar to those in Belarus. We must be clear-sighted and see that it is Vladimir Voranin who has stopped economic reforms. These events have led to a suspension of funding from the international institutions. We know the means used to turn Moldova eastwards and to create problems with Romania. For instance the Moldovan Government refused to allow the people to set up an Orthodox community attached to the Romanian Orthodox Church. This has been condemned as contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Transdniestria does not need mentioning further; we know about it and the present attitude of the government is not helping to solve the problem there. The Christian Democrat party has been mentioned. What has been said over the last few days in the Russian Duma, which has accused Romania of interference, is worrying. What has been said in the Russian Duma is not accurate. We now have a situation where a Romanian diplomat has been declared persona non grata. This is creating a good deal of tension. Parliament and the Commission need to focus much more on Moldova for the reasons mentioned by Mrs Schröder. We must avoid being confronted with a new Belarus. We need intelligent sanctions, intelligent measures, because it is such a poor country. Those of you who have been to that country know that the children in Moldova are the worst off in Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, at a time when we have all, I hope, been scandalised by Mr Berlusconi’s statements, demonstrating as they do such suspicion and hatred of foreigners, I believe that now, more than ever, it is time to combat racism, and to combat it in all its most insidious forms. The Commission’s communication on a Community immigration policy, and the vote on the Pirker report, give us an opportunity to do just that. In that respect I welcome Mr Vitorino's statements. We must not forget that for Europeans the Tampere Summit in October 1999, which sought fair treatment for nationals of third countries in comparison with citizens of the Union, was a very important event. We must start from one important established fact, which we were reminded of just now: the myth of zero immigration can no longer be a realistic concept, and in any case demographic problems and labour shortages will have to make us change our ideas about immigration. This is why, today, we must give our strong support to the Commission’s communication, because this future Community policy on immigration has a great many virtues, in particular that of combating all forms of criminal activity. It has to be said that the rapporteur, Mr Pirker, has adopted a rather critical position regarding the Commission’s communication. Unlike Mr Pirker, we s are convinced that our approach to this question must be a humane approach rather than an economic approach, because we are talking here about the fate of human beings, not about common merchandise. We must also remember, and we can never remember it enough, that if people emigrate and suffer the pain of separation from their country and their loved ones, it is because they are obliged to do so. They are not simply doing it for pleasure. The Commission’s position is fundamental inasmuch as it proposes a framework. I shall end by saying, in addition, that in a European Union which is constantly becoming more integrated, and which now has the benefit of a Charter of Fundamental Rights, no Member State can now claim that its policy on admission is nobody’s business but its own. I therefore reiterate my full and wholehearted support for the Commission’s proposal, at the same time taking a critical view of the content of Mr Pirker’s report. As far as I am concerned, I defer the vote of the French delegation on this report.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my task is also on behalf of my group, to welcome Amendments Nos 1 to 11 and the spirit in which they were moved by my friend, Mr Wieland. These are important points although they are not controversial among us. We welcome in particular the extension of training for general practitioners to three years, together with the amendment originally moved by Mrs Gebhardt for lifelong learning for general practitioners. This is extremely important. The medical associations have been pressing us upon this point and I fully agree with them. It is also important as a purely linguistic matter to make sure that gleichwertig is translated as 'equivalent' and its equivalent words in other European languages. I conclude by taking up the point that nothing is more important than that the laws of the European Union should be understandable to its citizens. Without that our Community and our Union lack the clarity of purpose which will make them not merely acceptable to, but embraced by, the citizens. Therefore all projects of consolidation of law that tend to making the law more readily understood by the citizen and its purposes more lucid to her or him are projects to which we should give our greatest support. I am very happy to support this report. I once again congratulate my friend, Mr Wieland, on the spirit in which he moved it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to apologise because I was not concise enough just now and evidently have not completely followed the rules. I apologise for this. The President of the Council asked me a question just now. He said: you are making a value judgment and I would actually like to hear from you, Mr Staes, what we can do in practical terms? May I ask the President of the Council whether he or his representative would be willing to receive me with a senior delegation from Médécins sans Frontières, so that we can make clear what specifically could happen in anticipation of the meeting on 14/15 April or possibly other meetings with the Russians. If we receive a reply to this, then I have been concise and then I have a good reply to my question.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, for years, Parliament has called for specific and uniform protection under criminal law of the Union’s financial interests. Frustration inevitably sets in when we see the weakness of the Convention (and of the protocols relating to this protection) which, five years after being signed, has still not been ratified and has still not come into force. On the other hand, more pro-active attempts, such as OLAF, which is currently operating, have not allayed legitimate concerns about the system of guarantees for individual rights. The proposals in Mrs Theato’s report seek to encourage the Commission to present a substantive legislative measure on the protection, under criminal law, of our financial interests, which would criminalise certain activity, specifically fraud against the Community budget. These proposals represent a serious attempt to establish a new and ever more urgently-needed uniform criminal law for the whole Community. At the same time they call for the existence of an independent body to coordinate and monitor the thoroughness of investigations by OLAF, without harming the administration of justice by each Member State and under the supervision of the European Court of Justice. Finally, following on from what was agreed in Tampere, the report restates the need for a European Public Prosecutor. This issue has been brought once again to the fore by Commissioner Vitorino’s timely decision to ask the IGC to include in its agenda the creation of this new role, which everyone considers vital. We should approve this report because it highlights the need to maintain efficient legal control over our institutions, by protecting the Union’s financial system with a substantive and procedural European law which is capable of maintaining the credibility of the Community’s economic life. Nevertheless, it raises some very basic questions. Is there currently a sufficient legal basis for justifying, in legal terms, the creation of a specifically Community-wide criminal law which, although it might be called subsidiary, will always clash with the practice, and in certain areas, with the traditional, separate criminal law of the Member States? As there are doubts, would it not be more advisable, from a political point of view, to put the reform of the legal system on the IGC agenda, and incorporate these proposals into the more general reform of the Union’s legal system along the lines of what is being requested for the European Public Prosecutor? Surely these subjects will be of the greatest relevance to a revision of the treaties which will contribute to the stability of the area of freedom, security and justice?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we were told by Council this morning that East Timor deserves our full support. We were told that we supplied observers that were crucial to the success of the referendum when the East Timorese said a very loud and very large “yes” to independence. We were told by the Council that the Commission is preparing social and economic assistance for a newly independent East Timor, all of which of course we welcome. But we are also told by Mrs Halunen that she was surprised at the terror that took place after the referendum. I am surprised that she was surprised. I was in Jakarta in August, as a special representative of the UNDP working with the Indonesian Parliament, the DPRK, on new rules for that parliament. It was clear to me then and more importantly to everybody else in Jakarta that firstly there would be a resounding yes in a referendum and secondly that the army, or at least large sections of the army, would try to subvert that process by engaging in and encouraging terror. We have seen that happen, but why we are surprised I do not know. I welcome the peacekeeping force. I welcome the humanitarian aid that is going to go in to help the 200,00 to 400,000 refugees. I welcome the fact that we were told that EUR 8 million would be available for that humanitarian aid. But it must be delivered quickly. I accept that in the interim it may be delivered by air. We are told it is going to be dropped in by helicopters from 1,500 metres. If you remember the aid we saw being airlifted in and dropped to some of the Kurdish refugees from the air, it was not very successful. If I recall correctly, some of the refugees were actually killed. As soon as possible that aid needs to be delivered on the ground. We need to make sure that it happens within days rather than weeks. I accept the need for the ban on arms. We need to stop arms sales to Indonesia and I welcome the four-month ban. It may be that it needs to be continued but at the same time we also need to be helping the Indonesians by providing them with assistance to ensure that very fragile democracy elected in the last general election is able to establish itself. Unless we do that in November or December we will be having a similar debate about Indonesia, telling each other how we knew it was all going to end in tears.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I believe that the question that concerns all of us here is not whether or not multilateral rules are necessary to provide a framework for world trade. We unanimously recognise the need for such rules. The problem, in my view, is to know whether the World Trade Organisation is functioning on the basis of rules which are equitable and able to help the world, and not just Europe, to progress towards sustainable development. The replies that I have heard from the Council especially, and to a lesser extent from Commissioner Lamy, make me think that it is begging the question. We have started from the hypothesis that there is clearly no contradiction between these two objectives and therefore the desire is to extend the field of competence of this organisation without having answered, through reasoned argument, what seems to me to be a fundamental question. We have five years of experience from which we can say that, in a certain number of significant cases such as hormones in animal rearing, bananas and GMOs, the record is far from brilliant. We note that the consequences are negative upon the functioning of the European Union’s policies and also, I feel able to say, those of certain developing countries. Also, we note a lack of action on the part of the European Commission when it senses the possibility of conflict with the WTO. We therefore in advance give in to certain demands which may be made by trading partners in order to avoid conflicts. So much for internal policies. As for foreign policy, I think we should insist on the fact that we do not only have commercial commitments, but we are also bound by multilateral agreements on the environment and international conventions on respect for human rights and that these commitments, in my opinion, an opinion which I believe is shared by many colleagues, have a value on both an ethical and a political level which is more important than free trade. We believe that these values cannot be called into question by the functioning of the WTO. We have no choice but to state that there is contradiction at the very heart of the texts of the WTO, the agreements and the statutes. Two principles form the basis of the functioning of the WTO. On the one hand, the prevention of discrimination between products for which the production processes are different, that is to say in particular the environmental or social conditions under which the product is produced. On the other hand, the fact that it is necessary to reduce to a minimum the negative effects on free trade of any political measure aimed at public health, the protection of the environment or social protection. These are two examples of the basic principles of this organisation which go against the objectives which we are trying to defend. In conclusion, Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, we believe that an evaluation prior to any expansion of the competences of the WTO is essential and that, otherwise, we are doing nothing more than applying a liberalist ideology.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The European Parliament must insist on the three amendments: - on excluding nuclear energy in the earthquake region of Turkey, as far as the system of production is concerned; - on protecting cultural identity and abolishing the death penalty; - on contributing to the solution of the Kurdish problem. That is why I voted for these amendments. I believe however that the European Parliament should not have changed its stance on the amendments of the first reading: Article 5 (criteria for Turkey’s accession), Article 15 (suspension of cooperation with Turkey if there are obstacles to the issues of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, the protection or minorities), Article 35 (annual report on the protection of democratic principles, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, compliance with international law). Unfortunately, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union crumbled under pressure from the Council, which is promoting an unprincipled realpolitik with the Turkish regime, thereby depriving Turkish citizens of a boost towards democracy, which could be given by the European Union.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as you may recall, last month I raised the issue of the extreme right-wing British National Party claiming that sympathetic serving police officers in Oldham have provided confidential police videos of the riots in that town, obviously calling into question evidence given by such biased officers in the ongoing trials. It turns out that, instead of investigating the claims that the BNP had received such material, the police have obtained an injunction imposing a ban on the showing of the videos, which I understand, but also on the reporting of the fact that BNP is making such claims and even on the fact that an injunction has been obtained. Will you write to the appropriate authorities expressing Parliament's concern that this attempt to bury a problem, rather than to investigate it, is not the way to deal with these issues?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur. The report that eventually came out of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs was indeed a reasonable report. However, my group had one major problem with it over the support for the rigidity of the stability and growth pact. Consequently we are going to be supporting the amendment on that which will be coming from another group this afternoon. Because we felt that what came out overall had a sense of balance to it, we are not going to be supporting many of the other amendments seeking to reinstate certain parts of the original text, e.g. Amendment 17 concerning GATS. We do not agree that the General Agreement on Trade in Services will be a job engine, either here or in the developing world. That was the subject of the extensive debate that Parliament had on Monday. What concerns us as well is that the present text again lacks a mechanism for sustainability, that is, an environmental dimension that really must be incorporated into all that we are doing. Too often we see that the poorest people in the worst quality jobs also live in the worst environment. If we are really going to do something to upgrade employment or our social environment, we need to take account of the physical environment. We also agree with a lot that the Commissioner said about the ownership of this employment strategy. It would be very useful if national parliaments debated the national action plans that were put forward by governments. In our delegation visits from this committee, we have found all too often that national parliaments do not have a clue that these plans even exist and they certainly have not participated in them. That would be a welcome step forward. To pick up on the issue of small- and medium-sized enterprises: yes, they are important, but only if - as Mr Schmidt said - they are of high quality. You can have a small sweatshop as well as an ethical business and regulation is there to support the latter, not the former.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as we discuss the war in Iraq we should realise immediately that never in the history of the world has there been a war in which the vast majority of victims have not been innocent civilians. For that reason, it should be our primary objective now, as we enter the new century and the new millennium, to do all in our power to ensure that Iraq is the last war in the history of the world. The way to do that for the European Union should be as follows: instead of sending armies to areas of conflict, we should be sending the philosophy and principles of peace, plus a large team of officials to promote dialogue. I know what I am talking about in this regard. The European Union is in a very powerful position to do this. Look at the century we have just left. The first half was the worst in the history of the world: two world wars and 50 million human beings slaughtered. Who could have forecast that in the second half of that century all those countries would be together or that we would be all together as we are today? Therefore, we should study how that was done and how the philosophy behind it was sent to every area of conflict. Principle number one of the European Union is respect for difference. What is all conflict about? Difference in religion, nationality and race. The answer to difference is to respect it. Principle number two is to have institutions to do that. Principle number three creates the circumstances in which they can then all work together in their common interests and break down the barriers of the past. Those are the three principles we have in our peace process in Northern Ireland. The European Union and all the world's major countries should come together to create that kind of world and to take the necessary steps to prevent war. The European Union itself, as I have said before – given that it is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution – might begin by creating a Commissioner for peace and reconciliation, backed up by a department of peace and reconciliation, which could be sent to areas of conflict with the principles of conflict resolution that are the heart of the European Union. In doing that, let us build a world for the new century and the new millennium in which there will no longer be any war or any conflict but total respect for diversity. Because when you look at humanity no two human beings are the same. Difference is the essence of humanity, and it should therefore be totally respected and never fought over. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I want to thank Mrs Morgan for her report and to say that I believe it is an important report and good report. It has been the product good cooperation at the committee level and I want to acknowledge that Mr Pomés Ruiz and Mrs Theato made their contribution too. This report will go some way towards clarifying the responsibilities that we have and helping the European Commission as well to understand what its role is and what is expected of it. I would also like to echo the words of Mr Mulder when he spoke of the importance of the procedure for granting discharge and stressed that it must be taken extremely seriously. The people who work on the Committee on Budgetary Control sometimes do not realise the importance of this instrument in guiding the work of the Community in so many fields of their responsibility. We must pursue this task with firmness but also with moderation and understanding and we must understand that over the years – perhaps because public spending at European level was such a small percentage of the entire public spending of the European Union, 1% as against 40% on average by the Member States – it was seen as a detail. I think it is true to say that it was very hard to get the Member States to understand that they had to apply the same concern and the same care to guarding the resources of the Union that they did to guarding their own resources. I heard – and it is not an isolated incident – the United Kingdom Minister for Social Welfare say on television that if he could stop fraud he could save GBP 6 billion. He said that quite honestly and regretted that it was so. But if a European Commissioner said that we would expect them to resign the next morning. So let us understand that fraud is not a problem peculiar to the European Union.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in response to Mr Haarder may I ask that he read very carefully the declaration of the 12th and then maybe he will understand why I am angry. Would he not be convinced by the fact that Pakistan embassies are using this worldwide to rubbish our report and to say that there is something wrong with it? Would he also accept – and I agree with his point about the strategic importance of Pakistan in the region, especially at this critical time – that failed states, abuse of human rights and abuse of democracy are the very things that feed terrorism? The best way to eradicate terrorism is to restore democracy, rather than turning a blind eye to a military regime that is abusing democracy, wants to retain power and does not want to return it to a civilian administration.

Political group: PPE-DE