GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, each of the countries referred to in this report is different and each of the plans varies accordingly. I will speak only about Sri Lanka, a country I have visited, and a country many of whose citizens have sought refuge in London and other parts of the European Union. It is a country, President, in which a civil war has raged for the past eighteen years – eighteen years which have seen the proportion of defence spending by the Sri Lankan government rise steadily. This money is spent fighting a war that the Sri Lankan government cannot win and it is a war that the Tamils cannot win either. The only solution must be a brokered peace. It could be that the European Union, with its historical links, could act as that intermediary. My colleague, Anna Terrón, has said that this report is naïve. I feel that the report skirts around the real issue and is a diversion from the debate that we ought to be having on Sri Lanka and the other countries. The report says that there is no end to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. It speaks of human rights abuses, cases of aid not reaching the most desperate areas and of economic deprivation. That is the effect of the war and it says that we should work more closely with the Sri Lankan government. Yet it is they who are controlling what we know and it is they who control what coverage we get and we must be circumspect. We all know about the well-publicised cases of Tamil action against government forces. We have heard less about the hospitals and schools being destroyed and of torture by Sri Lankan government troops. So when the report says, Mr President, that we should look for ways to find a political solution to this conflict, I agree. Nothing else matters. Nothing else will solve the problems or lessen the human rights abuses. Nothing short of a cessation of the conflict will end the misery of the Tamils in Sri Lanka and nothing else will end the number of people seeking refuge in the European Union. Nothing else will stop people from fleeing the country. A high-level action plan, Mr President, that does not recognise these fundamental reports is – I would argue – not worth the paper it is written on.

Political group: PSE
At a time when the UN Security Council refuses to take a stand, the ΕU and the European Parliament are throwing all their weight behind the Annan plan, coercing the people and the political forces of Cyprus. The resolution adopted is an insult of the first magnitude to the Cypriot people, in that it calls on them 'to be fully responsible, consistent and committed to their status as EU citizens'. It extols the Annan plan as a shining example for the settlement of equally difficult international issues and maintains that it establishes a functioning federal system of intergovernmentalism. Of course, it does not contain a word about the Turkish invasion and occupation, the British bases and the guarantor powers. No embarrassment about the presence of Turkish troops on EU territory. Equally repulsive of the content of the resolution were the positions of numerous 'friends' of Cyprus, including President Pat Cox, Commissioners Verheugen and Patten and Greek MEPs. The President accused the Cypriot media of exclusion at a time when he himself, in an interview with a Cypriot newspaper, talked at leisure about the Cypriot leadership's lack of courage and imagination. The Commissioners spoke in unacceptable terms, extremely derogatory and insulting, as sovereigns to their subjects. The Communist Party of Greece supports the Cypriot people, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike, and roundly condemns any form of pressure, threat or coercion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wish sincerely to thank Mr van den Bos for his devoted and far-sighted work on human rights in the world. I wish particularly to emphasise issues surrounding the defence of religious freedom, for which Mr van den Bos has provided a sound basis in this document and which I myself have been able to be involved in further strengthening. The European Parliament draws attention to bans on missionary activity and threats of punishment in cases where people change faith. We would censure acts of violence based on a misinterpretation of religion or faith. The European Parliament would point to the vulnerability experienced by members of religious minorities around the world. An important observation in the document is that atheistic extremism may undermine people’s ability to co-exist peacefully. We also warn against intolerance based on atheism. It is stated that the rights of women and girls are threatened by child marriage. We also indicate the important role of the media in disseminating knowledge of religions and cultures. An important principle emphasised in Mr van den Bos's report is the right to change or renounce one’s faith and to seek one’s own spiritual home in freedom and without encountering legislation that is oppressive or that gives rise to threats of punishment for those who change their faith and religion. We wish to remove bans upon, and threats in connection with, converting from one religion to another. We wish to resist punishments and other practices in the name of religion that violate human freedoms and rights. Finally, this important document contains legitimate repudiations of the choice of Libya as Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Criticism is also directed against Cuba, where 78 human rights activists have been locked up because of their work on human freedoms and rights.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to speak in this debate dealing with a key proposal for the process of European construction. The possibility of having a genuine European limited liability company is in line with the thinking which has led us to a European internal market, to a monetary union and to the last phase of the full use of the euro, which we are now approaching. Nevertheless, as one of the rapporteurs has pointed out, it has taken us thirty years to arrive at this thinking – a little more than thirty years – from the first proposal, in 1970, until now. My observation on behalf of the has two aspects to it: on the one hand, we will of course support the proposal; we believe that it represents a step forward within the achievements of the process of the European construction. We must also say, however, on the other hand, that we are not satisfied. As the proposed amendments to both reports point out, the structure proposed for the creation of a European limited liability company is still too complex. There are various options and the possible varieties of European company may even arise within a single Member State. It is now thought that if the different methods and options are taken into account and a combined calculation is made, up to two hundred different figures may be reached. We do not believe that this is the most appropriate way to consolidate a European company which would act in accordance with the reality which we have achieved thanks to the European internal market and the monetary union. We have therefore also presented a series of amendments on behalf of the aimed at consolidating this key figure for the Economic and Monetary Union and we would very much like the Council to accept them.

Political group: ELDR
The Morillon report on Turkey’s accession to the European Union serves, above all, to remind the Turkish Government that it must open up the Turkish market to European capital by carrying out ‘structural reforms’ ranging from ‘dismantling state subsidies to reorganising pensions and accelerating privatisation’: in other words, by reducing social budgets and by making the living conditions of the most destitute sections of the population even worse. As far as human rights are concerned, however, the report confines itself to ‘encouraging the Turkish Government’, ‘calling’ on it to do better, without European countries ever threatening it, even if only to stop delivering arms. The truth is that neither the rapporteur nor European governments want to offend the military who, in reality, govern Turkey and reduce a section of the country to a state of emergency. European governments do not want to offend Turkish reactionaries who refuse to abolish the death penalty and trample women’s rights underfoot. Nor do they want to offend the Turkish authorities who now oppress the Kurdish people after having already massacred the Armenian population. Let those who are interested only in the movement of capital and goods and not life and human rights vote for this report. We voted against it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I have three short questions to ask Mr Fischler. One of the questions I am often asked is if one case of BSE breaks out in a herd of dairy cows, why does the entire herd have to be slaughtered? The systems vary from country to country in Europe. What is the Commission’s view on this? Is it necessary or not, or is it just a precautionary measure? The way in which the tests are funded varies from country to country. Is that good for the unity of the market and if not, is the Commission planning to do something about it? Thirdly, we still import large quantities of beef from outside Europe. How does the Commission ensure that these cattle have not been fed animal meal, and are the controls adequate?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as early as the year 2000 I expressed regret in this House that, although the poorest regions and Member States had been catching up thanks to EU support for regional development, the gap between the least and most developed regions in the Community had barely narrowed. The inequalities in regional development continue to exist. This conclusion can also be drawn from the report by Mr Mastorakis, whom I should like warmly to congratulate. Despite the best efforts of those responsible for regional policy at European and national level, the challenges that we face today in the year 2003 are not diminishing. They are becoming even greater if you consider the stagnant economy and the sharp increase in unemployment in many European countries. A very great burden is placed on economic and social cohesion even today. The enlargement of the European Union to include ten more countries from central and eastern Europe will not only increase regional disparities and thus place an even greater strain on cohesion, but, as the expiry of the current support period from 2000 to 2006 approaches, the debate on the shape of future regional policy from 2007 is also coming to the fore. In my opinion, the assessment of the criteria for measuring the development status and thus the eligibility of a region is a priority issue. Factors in regional development such as the rate of industrialisation, the level of poverty and social exclusion, the level of unemployment, the potential for research and development, the training capacity, the sustainability of development and the development of environmental protection, all need to be taken into account in the assessment alongside the present single criterion of GDP per head of the population. It is of particular concern to me, as it is to other Members from Objective 1 areas, that these special regions do not fall out of the highest support bracket because of a change in the arithmetic due to the accession of the new Member States. For them the principle should apply that they can claim the same financial support and rights to subsidies as they did before enlargement. I also support Mr Mastorakis's statement in his report about the shape of future Objective 2 areas, that is how they and the Objective 3 measures for disadvantaged groups are to be restructured, and welcome his comments on how eligibility for these measures will be determined.

Political group: GUE-NGL
This is a major issue but I will not at this stage repeat all the arguments used to demonstrate its importance. Instead I will just express my pessimism. Yet I refuse to give up hope because in life there is always room to act and to change things. Today I will just mention two points. Firstly, the pre-eminence of money is not acceptable as this allows countries which have the means to do so to buy the right to pollute from poorer countries! This is unacceptable, immoral and criminal for the future. Secondly, at a time when we are making great efforts to reduce pollution from new cars, we should be developing a proactive European programme for rapidly eliminating old cars which are often major sources of pollution, but excluding vintage cars. In this area too, I believe that where there is a will, there is a way.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall very briefly put three observations to the President-in-Office of the Council, the President of the Commission, and my fellow Members, the first of which concerns immigration. I think the evidence should lead us to believe that we should establish in Seville a policy that has been asked for since Tampere, that is truly effective at European level, that has a European dimension and that also establishes and intensifies a real political dimension to the European Union. This is a subject which, through the intergovernmental method, has sadly been postponed for too long. The second observation I would like to make is that account should also be taken of the external dimension that causes immigration, and that the cooperation mechanisms must therefore be strengthened far more than they have been to date. I believe that one topic should be resolved in Seville: the evident distancing of the positions expressed by the Commission over the past few months from the Commission proposals and their reception by the Council. I think that, specifically, Mr de Miguel has commented on the importance attached to the Convention; it would be good to wait for the results of the Convention before making a series of proposals which seem to rather distort the context in which the Intergovernmental Conference would subsequently have to state its position. Lastly, allow me to note that in Laeken the seats of many agencies of the European Union were not decided on. I would like to know whether this area will be covered in Seville.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we need is a set of uniform procedures for frequency allocation. The objective should be to achieve the greatest economic benefit possible. The UMTS has demonstrated that there is a need for action here. If a kind of virtual property arises as a result of frequency allocation, would it not make sense to permit licensing in this field in such a way that a new source of income is again available for finance ministers which, combined with equity capital formation for the companies involved, brings a benefit for both sides? I think that we need to look for totally new theories for frequency allocation and that we should also have the courage to implement them. I often get complaints from CB users. Mr Scheibenbogen writes to me regularly. This is quite simply because there is still no single market for equipment use in Europe, so that we need to find an approach in the area of hardware too so as to secure a single market. Article 7 is about publishing information. I would be interested to hear from the Commissioner in what form this information is to be made available in future. I would like to see more detail in Article 10(1) about the powers of investigation for regulatory authorities, whilst of course observing the principle of proportionality and preserving business secrets. I believe that these principles are particularly important for the future, and I will be pleased if we can congratulate Mrs Niebler on the adoption of this very important report tomorrow, because she really has done sterling work.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the construction of the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice is making steady progress and growing day by day, although rather more slowly than some of us would like. Today we are discussing two important segments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The more important is precisely the creation of Eurojust, which has already been started off with the setting up of the provisional unit, which has prepared the ground for the definitive body. The European Parliament will, I hope, approve the excellent report by Mrs Gebhardt and hence the proposed amendments intended to strengthen the role and effectiveness of Eurojust. They do in fact indicate its duties and the scope of its competencies in a broad enough way to avoid difficulties and uncertainties in its actions and thus to be able to better ensure the security of the citizens. They set out better the guarantees that fundamental rights will be respected, especially with regard to the right to a defence and the confidentiality of personal data, and not least they ensure the autonomy and independence of the body, as behoves its nature as a judicial body. More effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters is a crucial element of the area of freedom, security and justice in order to face the challenge of crime in an area of free movement. However, in order to establish this cooperation in concrete form, the complexity of the procedures makes me hope yet again that in the next Treaty on the Union this matter too will finally become a Community matter, on a par with civil judicial cooperation, by means of the communitisation of the third pillar.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will be voting on the Cappato report for the second time. Our positions have moved closer, without, however, becoming identical. So the rapporteur has taken misgivings on the left of this House into account, in that the consumer's consent will in future be required for the sending of SMS advertising. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has accepted by a substantial majority the so-called soft opt-out compromise supported by the rapporteur. This proposal alone defends the interests of consumers without doing away with European jobs on a massive scale. Why? If Parliament were to generally prohibit business-to-customer advertising from the outset, as Mrs Paciotti's proposal would have it, businesses would simply send their advertising material into the European Union from the USA or other third States. The European consumer would have gained nothing, absolutely nothing, and the only effect would be to weaken the European e-business market. We therefore want to let those states that at present have an opt-out system retain it, keep an eye on developments and come to a new decision after two years. At the same time, the Cappato proposal takes three steps to protect the consumer. First, the consumer can put his name on what is termed a ‘Robinson list’, so that advertising material may not generally be sent to him. Secondly, the consumer can, simply and without charge, indicate his wish not to receive e-mail advertising from specific companies. Thirdly, e-mail advertising will be easily recognisable as such in the inbox and will be able to be deleted simply and without cost. This last option is already available from providers such as AOL – I am sure Mr van Velzen is about to point that out – but this does not put AOL in a monopolistic position. Such an assertion is complete nonsense, as anyone can already download from the Internet a spam recognition program of this sort, no matter what Internet Service Provider he has a contract with for everything else. By the way, AOL was itself opposed to such a regulation. So I would ask you to support Mr Cappato's proposed compromise by a significant majority.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I will start by expressing my amazement at the speech by Mr Hughes, whom I usually experience as being a reasonably logical and calm person and who suddenly, as soon as there is any objection to this directive, from whatever quarter, is of the opinion that sinister forces are at work. We are simply carrying out our task as parliamentarians and we listen to everyone, including people who are not directly involved in the process that leads to directives. In my view, this Parliament is not indifferent to the cause of health and safety, nor to objections concerning the implementation thereof. I am therefore delighted that we can conclude the second reading of the noise directive – forgive me for not using the correct title of the directive – this week. According to the Dutch official dictionary, noise is defined as a harsh, unpleasant sound, including background noise, din, racket, roar and commotion. In other words, it is a noise which any right-minded person will experience as disagreeable and which we can do without. I am therefore astounded, even dismayed – and many a composer will be turning in their graves – that Beethoven is being likened to a drill. According to the Council, the Commission and a number of fellow MEPs, being subjected to the noise of a hefty circular saw is actually worse than Tchaikovsky. I do understand that this is not merely about whether the noise is irritating, but also whether it is harmful. What I should like to point out is that different types of noise justify a differentiated approach. I am of the opinion that the music and entertainment industry should fall outside the scope of this directive and be regulated in a separate directive. The fundamental difference between noise and Vivaldi is as follows: in the music and entertainment industry, sound is the ultimate product, or at least an important component thereof. Sound plays a central role in this industry. Noise in a factory is a negative side-effect, which makes no difference to the end result of the activity – quite the reverse, in fact – if it is not there. Music involves customers; it involves activities of great cultural value, especially for young people. We would not prevent professional footballers from playing in excess of 45 minutes per week, would we? That is the difference; that is what matters; we found a response to it other than levelling unjustified criticism at this side of the House, as though we have no care for musical technique. We have, but we also care about the people concerned.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we are beginning to establish a common asylum and immigration law in Europe. That means that we need instruments to exercise the necessary controls. A common immigration law means that we have no more internal borders and take responsibility for the people entering the European Union at the external borders. It is perfectly clear that there is abuse, for example in connection with asylum claims. The number of people applying for asylum on grounds which have nothing to do with political persecution far outweighs the number of applicants recognised as victims of political persecution. Abuse in this connection means not only that asylum is sought on non-existent grounds but also that the same applicants make applications on these grounds to several countries. We will only be able to control this abuse if we at long last implement the EURODAC fingerprinting system, which we have been waiting such a long time for, and if the Council finally decides to allow this system to enter into force. It has already proven its efficacy on several counts, and it is essential if asylum is to gain acceptance. We therefore advise the Council in the strongest terms to make its decisions so that EURODAC, the system which allows fingerprinting throughout Europe, can become a fact of life. That is the task now before the Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
That was a very full reply and I will need to study it. I was at the conference organised by the Irish Government recently. It made progress and that was why I tabled this question. If we do not have a common definition of what organised crime is, and if we do not have the ability to collect statistics across the European Union, how can we possibly know how to fight against organised crime? I am grateful that progress is being made, but I am particularly interested to know whether you are including in this the ten accession countries which will be joining in May. Regrettably, a lot of the organised crime which affects us derives from Central and Eastern Europe.

Political group: ELDR