GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, sadly Afghanistan has been slightly forgotten about in the aftermath of the Iraq war. A lot of resources will be needed to rebuild the country, and the EU is a large donor; in my view this entitles us to lay down significant political conditions, including demanding progress in human rights, particularly women's rights to education and access to the workforce. I also regret the new Constitution, which gives primacy to Sharia law over international, UN, civil, and political treaty obligations: this may cause conflict over areas such as female lapidation. I am concerned at the lack of security and the necessary concentration of ISA forces in Kabul to protect the government. There have been significant regroupings of Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces bent on murdering international aid workers in the provinces, which will set back progress. I do not believe President Musharraf is doing enough to rein in terrorist groups in Pakistan's tribal areas and north-west frontier provinces; this is ostensibly because Islamabad's writ does not run to these parts. More must be done if he is to have credibility in the fight against international terrorism. I was delighted that the Bactrian gold treasures were recovered and I would like to see funds devoted to the reconstitution of the National Museum in Kabul as a symbol of national pride under the patronage of the royal family, which is a benign uniting force in the land. Lastly, on the subject of the opium crop, my amendment has suggested consideration being given to buying and burning or using it for medical purposes as a painkiller, as a cheaper alternative to drug enforcement measures by the international organisations dedicated to fighting the drug trade and business. It would save the international community a lot of money to burn it and pay the farmers, instead of spending many billions of dollars fighting the drug trafficking trade.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I have another question for Mr Frattini. There has been a great deal of discussion about the unused monies in the Structural and Cohesion Funds, which are returned to the finance ministers every year. There is now very intensive debate about whether this money would be better allocated to extending the trans-European networks. Is this being discussed in the Council, and what timetable do you have in mind for these funds to be put to use, as soon as possible, for the benefit of the world’s most competitive region?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I wish to express my concern at the precarious and difficult situation of the eight Portuguese people who are being held hostage by various factions of the LFEC. I also wish to express my sympathy for their families and to state my heartfelt desire that these hostages are unconditionally released as quickly as possible, and I therefore believe that the Portuguese Government must make every possible effort to achieve this. As a matter of fact, this was precisely the thrust of a letter that I sent to the Swedish Presidency, in due time and with the utmost discretion, asking it about the possibility of the various Member States adopting measures in conjunction with the Portuguese and Angolan Governments which would facilitate or improve the likelihood of the immediate release of the hostages. In any case, I feel that it is appropriate to emphasise that these actions by the LFEC must be explicitly and roundly condemned. These are criminal acts that are designed to aggravate the political and military situation in Angola and which are also intended to give an international profile to a group that has no compunction about resorting to such actions in order to achieve separatist objectives, which are also completely unrealistic. In fact, it is worth pointing out that Angola’s territorial integrity must be scrupulously respected, also because no legitimacy has been conferred on this type of separatist objective by the international community, specifically either by the Organisation of African Unity or the United Nations. Lastly, I must express my profound surprise at the ease with which representatives of organisations that carry out such acts and which threaten to continue with them if they succeed, and are given total freedom to make statements and express themselves with complete impunity, which is, in fact, what has happened today. I wish, by the way, to thank our President, Mrs Fontaine, and her staff, for their rapid and determined action, compelling the three representatives of the LFEC who were present this morning to leave Parliament’s buildings.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we can be glad that the Lisbon Process is working in spite of everything. Two multiannual programmes that become effective from the start of next year are an indication of that. Erasmus Mundus is a master’s course programme to improve the attractiveness of Europe for nationals of third countries. E-Learning, which Parliament has been active in setting up through a pilot project, will provide inter alia schools and universities with new opportunities for cooperation. Now we have to ensure that the programmes get the necessary level of funding. Likewise, we must guarantee the financing of the European Year of Education through Sports and improve opportunities for youth organisation activities in the new Member States. It is a positive sign that enlargement is being taken into consideration in the Socrates-Youth programme and Culture 2000 programme. Switching to an activity-based budget will mean the opportunity to establish a legal basis for the financing of European cultural organisations. If we are firm and prudent we will create legislation that serves the cause of cultural cooperation and at the same time goes further to meet the requirements of transparency and good management.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his wake-up call on the internal market, which is to be congratulated on its ten-year anniversary. We sometimes forget that the internal market is still a process and represents a lot of unfinished business and you were right to remind us of this, Commissioner. If we look at our committee's agenda, most of the work has as its basis the good functioning of the internal market. Still, sadly, as you reminded us, with issues like the Community patent, those big decisions are still being flunked, sometimes, it has to be said, in the Council. It is strange because the internal market has been such a success story for Europe, a vision that we managed to sell effectively to our citizens in the run-up to 1992. Maybe it is drifting a bit and it really is time to re-engage our citizens, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, in what we are doing. What is in it for them? How does the market work for them? It is again a paradox: with the euro and with e-commerce, the internal market really ought to be taking off. Although you mentioned a survey which showed so much support for the internal market, I really do not think we can take that for granted. I and my colleagues on this committee were glad to be a part, some months ago, of an internal market forum that was organised in this parliament. We should do more of that to re-engage with our citizens and businesses about what the market is there for. If we achieve that, and if citizens and businesses are engaged, the level of implementation and excitement in Member States will be much greater and much more complete. I would like to echo Maria Berger's concerns about the European Convention. The internal market must find a key place in those discussions, or we risk losing what we have created and made such a success of.

Political group: ELDR
For forty years, the Greek Cypriots have insisted on their island's reunification. To the Turkish Cypriot minority in the North, that was unacceptable, because they feared becoming a disadvantaged minority in their own country. Meanwhile, a majority of the Turkish-speaking Cypriots are probably in favour of reunification and reconciliation on the basis of the UN Secretary-General's plan. In it, a Belgian model of state is being proposed, a federation of two monolingual federal states. It now looks like a majority of the Greek-speaking population will be voting against on 24 April because it wants more rights for itself and fewer for the Turkish-speaking minority. It wants to enforce the unilateral pre-condition that Cyprus become a Greek-speaking unified state, in which individual Turks are allowed to live. At this rate, agreement will never be reached between the two nations and the barbed-wire border separation will remain in place for ever. Along with most of the groups, Commissioner Verheugen now feels cheated, and rightly so. I warned against this as long ago as 5 September 2001 when we discussed the Poos report on Cyprus' accession to the EU. By only admitting the Greek-speaking part to the EU initially, the Turks could be forced to choose between poverty outside the EU or submission within the EU Member State Cyprus. After the failed referendum, we will have to look for another way of admitting the Turkish-speaking part to the EU, if it so wishes.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr Adam’s report, Mr President, deals with the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals. I voted for the motion: it is certainly good to register the development of sheep and goats too, but the wish expressed to me by a pensioner citizen is that Europe would also concern itself – and I hope Mr Adam will do so soon – with the registration and preservation of pension contributions paid in by workers, contributions which often, frequently – as least, this happens in Italy and, I fear, in other European States too – get lost somewhere in the process, disappear, resulting in the workers receiving lower pensions than they are entitled to. We must therefore ensure that years of work are registered and monitored throughout a person’s life.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mr Aznar gave us a rather flattering picture of the Barcelona Summit. I do not share his enthusiasm. Neither the form nor the content of this meeting were worthy of the capital of Catalonia. As far as the form was concerned, the city suffered several days of terrible disruption: there were traffic restrictions and a climate of insecurity because of the presence of a massive security force. Catalonia, one of the most Europhile nations in Europe, was treated with contempt. You, Mr President, were received by the Council. The same cannot be said of the President of Catalonia. That is a pity, but I believe that my compatriots will draw the obvious conclusions from that. In order to be recognised, we have to establish a Catalan republic by democratic means and join the Union on an equal footing. Mr Aznar's capitalist ardour was slightly cooled by his colleagues who face elections soon. Nevertheless, the dismantling of public companies is continuing, which means, whether you like it or not, the winding up of public services. The average length of working life is to be extended by five years. In order to keep older people working, payments will be paid to the young unemployed. Flexibility and mobility are the bywords of European employment policy and we are relying on employers, if possible, to carry out the restructuring process in a humane fashion. The result of this policy is insecurity for everyone, stress, poorer human relations, violence, and perhaps, in the future, a Europe-wide disaster of the kind we have witnessed in Argentina. Mr President, when I look at the stars that make up our flag, I see a different kind of Europe, a fraternal Europe based on culture, solidarity, mutual exchange and giving. That is the Europe that the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Barcelona want to see. It is tomorrow's Europe.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Whitehead, on this report, which was far from straightforward, and Mr Bowis, who has done great work on the preliminary task of the report on the White Paper. The report was not straightforward because, although the Commission’s proposal is a good starting document and is full of good intentions, in addition to the enormous number of amendments tabled in it, it takes the wrong approach and contains many ambiguities. For example, Article 5 should clearly define the objectives of food legislation and limit them to the protection of public and consumer health and food safety throughout the food chain, without hindering the free movement of agri-food products within the Community, as well as ensuring the competitiveness of the European agri-food industry within international markets. Other objectives, such as the protection of the environment and the protection and welfare of animals and plants, are all very laudable, Commissioner, but if they do not affect food safety, there is other legislation which deals with them or which can potentially deal with them. We have just voted, for example, under the urgent procedure, on the welfare of pigs, with the sole objective of increasing the legislative initiatives of the Swedish Presidency. The Authority’s work should focus on risk assessment and scientific advice, which is no small task of course. Commissioner, you have said on many occasions that the new rapid alert system is part of crisis management, and that it would be the responsibility of the Commission. However, in its proposal, the Commission proposes that the Authority should have this responsibility, in recital 35, in Article 21(2), in Article 22(h), in Article 34 and in Article 49. With regard to risk assessment, it should be of a scientific and independent nature. This is the true task of the future Food Authority and I am pleased that Amendment No 123 gives priority to its scientific opinions. As for the communication of risk, this should be done by experts, because a communication which is inappropriate for public opinion may create social alarm, as has already happened, and cause significant losses and economic disasters for agri-food sectors throughout the European Union. Lastly, I hope that the future decision on the headquarters of the European Food Authority will be preceded by a serious debate between our institutions and that it will finally be reached by co-decision.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I wholeheartedly support this report on better protection for victims of crime which demonstrates yet again in the EU's commitment to combating crime and protecting our citizens. We are trying to ensure that the rights and interests of victims of crime are better respected in all EU Member States, even when the crime itself has been committed outside the victim's usual country of residence. Consequently, many travellers and holidaymakers will benefit from this European initiative. This measure will help allow victims of crime to be able to claim full, immediate and effective compensation for any damage suffered, if possible to be paid by the perpetrator of the crime. Combating crime is crucial for my constituents in the North West. The Labour Government is cracking down on crime and disorder. With Labour, crime is already down 10% since 1997. Domestic burglary is down by 21% and vehicle crime by 15% – their lowest levels for a decade. The six-year decline in police numbers has been halted – 9000 extra recruits will take police numbers to their highest level ever. The Queen's Speech spells out that our next step is to cut violent crime and disorder by working together. The Tories, on the other hand, offer nothing but rising crime and falling investment. The Tories, on the other hand, offer nothing but rising crime and falling investment. Their record on law and order speaks for itself: during their time in office, the chance of being a victim of burglary increased from one in 32 to one in 13; the chance of being a victim of violent crime trebled. Madam President, the Labour Government is determined to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. By introducing greater protection for victims of crime across Europe, our citizens will gain confidence in the judicial system and the police, not just across Britain, but right across the European Union. (The sitting was suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) IN THE CHAIR: MR WIEBENGAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, at the moment I can do little more than thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities for this excellent report. I also thank the Commissioner for his response to the report and his commitment to renew this programme. I am a patron of an organisation in Ireland called Women's Aid. It is a national organisation which has benefited greatly from the Daphne programme. It provides shelter for women and children who are the victims of domestic violence. It also provides advocacy and public education and research. The problem we are dealing with here is deeply ingrained in our society, not just in far-off, distant societies which have particular religious views in relation to women. In Europe also there is a deeply ingrained misogyny in our society. It is not going to be rooted out overnight. It will require education and addressing the culture that we live in; it requires addressing the attitudes of our media. Our hope lies with our children and in trying to ensure that we inculcate in them a respect for the dignity of every human being, male and female, adult and child alike.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is no need to repeat what my colleagues Mr Goodwill and Mr Whitehead have said regarding the significant agreement that we have reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. Allow me nevertheless to say that, after what has happened over the last few days when we have had further cases of BSE in France, it is clear that we still have a long way to go before we have a completely safe market as far as beef is concerned. There is only one way to regain the consumers' trust and that is by guaranteeing the quality of the products. If we had an ideal world in the EU we would have had a foodstuffs authority which could have checked and ensured that everyone behaved according to the rules. Then the quality of the meat would have been to a large extent the same throughout the Union, and it would at least have maintained the EU standard everywhere. If we had also been able to ensure that everyone followed the rules regarding transportation, we would not need to run the risk of animals suffering during transit. Now, however, we need a system that involves stating where the animals come from, where they were born, where they were reared and where they were slaughtered. In this way the consumer is provided with information regarding how the animal may have fared and whether it may have been subjected to long journeys in transit. Mr President, in conclusion, the most important thing is that we obtain a system which means that by looking at a label on the meat we can see where it comes from, and that it is then possible to trace back through the complete foodstuffs chain to the original producer. This is where we need to get to.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, during this afternoon’s vote, there was unfortunately some confusion with regard to the Jarzembowski report. The view adopted by my group was that if cargo handling was not included in the directive, we would vote against it. We thought that that was the case, but that appeared not so. Hence the confusion. It was our group’s intention at the end, during the final vote, to vote in favour and not against, as we did, and I should like to have this minuted.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, if what you say is true, we have been particularly unfortunate because, although we requested these environmental assessments, we have not received a reply insofar as we have only been told that this is confidential information. It is therefore clear that there is something that does not add up in what you are telling us. We did not ask for information on the reasons why the EIB granted the funding. We simply asked what the general criteria which justified it were and which assessments were used when considering and granting the funds for the project – which, moreover, affects one of the richest areas in Italy, and which has a delicate environmental balance. According to what you are saying, these assessments should be public but, according to the EIB, this is not the case. Therefore, there is a slight discrepancy between your assertions and reality.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This Parliament report on the reform of the CFP remedies some of the shortcomings in the Commission proposal, but is remiss with regard to others. With regard to its positive points, I would highlight three main aspects: - the first is that sustainable fisheries management must be based on a balanced range of measures, not only on the simplistic solution of fleet reduction, but also on a greater selection of fishing methods, on the proper use of the MAGPs and of the TACs and quotas. Most of all, the recommendation that in any reduction of the fishing effort, lower targets are set for Member States that have already undertaken fleet reduction; - the second aspect is the clear recommendation that fisheries agreements with third countries, which, if properly implemented are of mutual convenience for both parties, must continue to be an integral part of the CFP. For this reason, it is right that ships removed from the Community fleet can continue to be included in fleets belonging to joint ventures; - the third aspect is the desire to find a specific solution to the problem of access to the waters of the outermost regions, which have very delicate balances and ecosystems, such as the Azores, the Island of Madeira and other regions in the European Union. The aspect that I feel is most negative is the report’s total omission of the structural component. There are two main reasons for not changing the rules laid down at the Berlin European Council on the funding of fisheries structures. The first is that fleet modernisation is in itself a priority matter, because otherwise the Community fleet will become uncompetitive: where Portugal is concerned, 40% of our fleet is over 25 years old and therefore, unless it receives support, it will be unviable. The second reason is that since appropriations were set in Berlin for fleet modernisation by 2007 and since various ship owners have placed orders on this basis, it is politically unacceptable to now change the rules in mid-stream.

Political group: PPE-DE