GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the recent floods wrought havoc and destruction throughout Europe, particularly throughout Britain and Ireland. In my own constituency the towns of Clonmel, Fermoy and Mallow were the worst affected. It was heartbreaking to witness the scenes of destruction of so many peoples' homes and to learn of the problems that were being experienced by many communities, businesses and farmers. It is very regrettable that we, the European Union, do not have a budget line to assist those who face these particular difficulties, despite my attempts and attempts by others over many years to get such a budget line instated. What I find puzzling about it is the damage it has done to areas of the economy where the European Union commits significant funds, particularly in relation to infrastructure. It is about time that we rectified it. The EU, in cooperation with Member State governments, should initiate a preventative action programme to strengthen infrastructure in order to stop the same scale of destruction recurring in the future when extreme weather conditions prevail. The problem is that we know when these weather conditions are coming but no one seems to do anything to prevent the worst damage being inflicted. The other problem I would like to raise is the additional burden that the victims of these particular tragedies will also experience, the point mentioned by my colleague, Mr Deva, namely the refusal of many insurance companies to continue insurance cover. I wonder whether or not we, as a Union, could force these insurance companies under existing law to discharge what are essentially moral obligations, rather than do as they do at present and cherry pick and prefer a no-risk situation. However, if we cannot force them to do that then it is an area into which Member State governments must step, to see whether or not it is possible, under the umbrella of the EU, to oblige Member State governments to provide state cover. It is not fair that people should experience tragedies of this proportion and then face a very uncertain future when, given the climatic changes already taking place, there is an absolute certainty that the problems they have experienced over the last couple of weeks will recur, if not next year, then certainly in the years that follow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, we welcome, and do not take for granted, Mr Lamy's cooperative approach in working with Parliament. There are issues which the Socialist Group, like others, finds difficult: the Singapore issues, especially investment and competition. Of course we appreciate the importance of both. On investment: currently there are over 2000 bilateral investment treaties. That leads to great complexity for developing countries and an imbalance of power, which will not disappear with a multilateral treaty. On competition: naturally domination by just a few companies leads to high costs, and developing countries are the prime victims. However, we are still concerned about our approach to the Doha Agenda, and we are not yet convinced that the WTO is the right place or that this is the right time to discuss investment and competition. Like the Commissioner, we have listened very carefully to developing countries. We know that they show very great disquiet about the Singapore issues. The declaration of the trade ministers of the least developed countries of 2 June made this absolutely clear. Some of the larger developing countries are downright opposed to negotiations on these issues. Therefore, there is no way near the explicit consensus which is needed. What should the EU do in those circumstances? Should we persist and foist an agenda on unwilling developing countries? If we do, there will be a price to pay in other negotiations! There are many more important issues and they are identified in our resolution and in the Commission's mandate. Let us concentrate on them at Cancun.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we cannot shirk our responsibilities. The war against Iraq, based on the falsehood that weapons of mass destruction were present in the country, US militarisation and the principle of pre-emptive, indefinite war, has endangered the whole human race, forcing us to live in fear of terrorist crimes and the suffering they cause. We cannot fail to mention – it is our duty – that the USA’s imperalist policy is destroying not just life, land, history and culture but the entire system of world relations, the United Nations Pact and international law. We cannot just turn the page and pretend that nothing has happened. We must build and rebuild our relations with the USA, with the countries of the world, with due respect for human and civil rights, pursuing justice and rejecting double standards, as in the case of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Saddam Hussein has vanished into thin air, and, I, together with the Iraqis, can only rejoice, but the situation is unstable and the occupying forces must be replaced by an Iraqi government which includes women and is coordinated by the United Nations. The European Union must do its part, promoting reconstruction and economic aid, the reestablishment of democracy and the access for Iraq to its own resources. France, Germany, Belgium, the Pope and the crowds of pacifists have given the European Union and Europe credibility in that part of the world. Let us therefore continue to pursue a path leading, as I said, to respect for rights and not oppression and occupation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Jarzembowski report emphasises the importance of faster development of freight rail networks, giving particular consideration to cross-border issues. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the untenable situation of the Italian railway line between Savona and the border with France; a rail link connecting western Liguria with the Cote d’Azur. This single track – I repeat, single track – line is a bottleneck for freight and passenger rail traffic, causing substantial damage to the economy of the area, which is dependent on tourism, olive-growing as well as the production of flowers and fruit and vegetables. The single track also increases safety risks and such a shortfall in the rail system has repercussions on road traffic, with serious congestion problems and pollution in an area that is heavily geared towards tourism. There has been talk of laying a second track since the 1950s, when I was still a small boy. Since then, the situation has not changed and increases in the volume of traffic make it even more critical, almost unsustainable, due to the continual delays that are building up and also affecting the adjoining French section of the line. Relatively recent works have moved further inland some sections of the railway line – also single track – that runs right along the coast and is therefore subject to coastal erosion. This has worsened the state of affairs because it has caused further bottlenecks. I will conclude with the hope that, as part of revitalising the international networks in the European Union, a speedy solution will be found by 1 January 2006, the date set for opening the rail networks to all types of rail freight services.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor. Firstly, I should like to say that Amendment No 118 does not replace Amendment No 46; in fact both need to be put to the vote. Secondly, with your permission, I have an oral amendment to propose to Amendment No 118. If the change were to be adopted I would be able to vote in favour of Amendment No 118. The change is as follows: instead of the word ‘exemption’ the words ‘this restriction’ should be added, and after ‘after legal personality’ we add, ‘only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such IORPs, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against IORPs without legal personality.’ If this oral amendment is accepted – and I have agreed it with the Member who tabled the amendment – then I would be able to support a vote in favour. (Parliament agreed to take into consideration the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0211/2001) by Mr Ettl, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 79/267/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for life assurance undertakings (COM(2000) 617 final – C5-0557/2000 – 2000/0249(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0212/2001) by Mr Ettl, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 73/239/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for non-life insurance undertakings (COM(2000) 634 final – C5-0558/2000 – 2000/0251(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Report (A5-0226/2001) by Mrs Flesch, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on the implementation of the Internet Top Level Domain '.EU' (COM(2000) 827 – C5-0715/2000 – 2000/0328(COD)) (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the European Council meeting of 15 – 16 June 2001 in Gothenburg (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0225/2001) by Mrs Randzio-Plath, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the 2000 Annual Report of the European Central Bank (C5-0187/2001 – 2001/2090(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0222/2001) by Mr Maaten, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on means to assist economic actors in switching to the euro (2000/2278(INI)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE – Lehne report (A5-0237/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too wish to congratulate Mr Bösch on his excellent report. He is renowned for his thoroughness and persistence, which have so often been the hallmark of the Committee on Budgetary Control in the past and which in fact led to OLAF being set up in the first place. Parliament has proved its worth as a very worthy guardian of the interests of the public and has initiated an administrative reform of which it can be proud. There is no doubt that OLAF could sometimes be more transparent, and I accept the criticisms expressed about that, including those of Mr Casaca. There is also no doubt that the public should sometimes be given information about OLAF at an earlier stage and more openly, as OLAF needs to publicise itself more. Nevertheless, I believe that we as Members should also stress that OLAF is a success story. What would have become of Eurostat without OLAF? What would have become of Eurostat without the courageous witnesses who have gone to OLAF and been able to make statements? That issue is still being pursued today. Looking back to what happened in 1999, it has to be said that it was UCLAF, OLAF's predecessor, which attempted at the time to play the matter down, and OLAF – demonstrating once again that the switch from UCLAF to OLAF was right – has grasped the opportunity with both hands to get this issue back on the agenda and to find a solution to the Eurostat problem. Nevertheless, and I think that this is a point we can all agree upon, it is clear that there are major problems about continuing to follow up the Eurostat case. It is clear that without the second step that must finally be taken now, by which I mean the step of setting up a European Public Prosecutor's office, it will repeatedly be left to the Member States to decide what measures to take. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to make a very clear appeal to the Convention to have the courage to take that positive step. I fear that the Member States themselves will not have the courage. Without the Convention we cannot hope to succeed in this, and we need a European Public Prosecutor to turn the administrative reform we have initiated with OLAF into a real success story.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Commissioner, I must confess that I have found this week quite tiring, because of all these evenings we have spent discussing the lack of respect for human rights. I am not talking about being tired of having to deal with this subject, but about being tired at the lack of results, despite constant pressure from this Parliament. Many hopes were raised when the Guatemala and El Salvador agreements were signed in 1996. We have been talking about the need for dialogue in Colombia. The problem, and the issue that we must deal with here in Parliament today, is that these agreements have not been honoured, and it is this factor that is frustrating the hopes of the majority of the population in places such as Guatemala, where, as Mr Nogueira rightly stated – a large proportion of the population is indigenous. I believe that the best way of remembering Monsignor Gerardi, the author and person responsible for this extraordinary document of historical clarification, which should today be the guide for the majority of Guatemalan judges talking about crimes committed during the civil war, is to demand that agreements be honoured, for there to be true agrarian reform, which has not taken place to date, for there to be respect for the large majority of the Guatemalan people – a respect that currently does not exist, because these people continue to live in abject poverty – for there to be an end to the increasing violence against the people and their representatives, defenders of human rights, farm-workers’ representatives, trade unionists, religious leaders and people involved with the rights of the majority of the population. Unfortunately, until now the majority of human rights have not been respected in Guatemala. For this reason, I believe that what we should be calling for is for the European Union, with all of its available resources, to use its influence so that these agreements, to which it contributed so much, are honoured.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I too, on behalf of my group, endorse what Mrs Flesch and Mr Harbour have said. The solution put forward with the amendments, which we urge Parliament to adopt en bloc, is a compromise solution, but I feel that it is a useful, appropriate compromise in that it will allow us to move forward quickly with the creation of the .eu domain. I feel that this is to be welcomed as positive for it represents another tangible step forwards – made possible by the cooperation not just of the rapporteur, Mrs Flesch, but also of the Commission and of Commissioner Liikanen, in particular – towards the implementation of the undertakings given at the Lisbon Summit. Therefore, since it is clear in many other contexts that decisions too can sometimes encounter practical difficulties and delays in implementation, I feel that our review of the situation tonight is cause for great satisfaction. I will stop there for fear of repeating what my fellow Members have said on the matter, but, without wishing to pre-empt what Commissioner Liikanen has to say, I add my voice to the call for the time frames for putting the .eu domain in place and making it operational to be made as short as possible. This point remains to be discussed and so I will leave the floor to the Commissioner now, who, we hope, is going to make a statement on the matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, once again the European Parliament is being called on to address what is, without doubt, the most problematic of all the countries associated with the European Union under some sort of special relationship which, in the case of Turkey, goes as far as qualifying as a candidate country. This time it is about what is, even by Turkish standards, an unprecedented case of unhesitating disregard for the basic tenets of the rule of law and democratic intergovernmentalism and, what is worse, under the supervision of a high-ranking judicial officer who ostentatiously confirmed a prevalent Turkish practice and state of affairs, within the framework of which Turkey systematically and blatantly infringes even the most fundamental obligations which it is supposed to have undertaken in order to justify and support its application to join the European Union. The raid by an anti-terrorist squad on the Human Rights Association of Turkey in Ankara adds yet another black mark to the long, sad list of Turkish repression of political, religious and minority human rights and freedoms in Turkey and belies, without any excuse whatsoever, the extravagant promises and assurances given by each Turkish Government in succession that they are allegedly taking and applying the institutional and other measures needed in order to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. Many hastened to extol these proclamations with superfluous optimism and now obviously realise with equal disappointment that, in treating the Turkish system with understanding and tolerance, they have achieved precisely the opposite effect and have basically encouraged and supported everyone in Turkey who opposes moves to bring the country into line with the recognised moral values of internal legal order and international conduct. That is why the European Union and, more particularly, the European Parliament, as the elected representative body of its people, must severely and unreservedly condemn this new intolerable incident and the more general standard Turkish stance in the field of human rights and international law and make it perfectly clear to the Turkish Government that any thought of accepting Turkey into the bosom of the European family is out of the question under these circumstances, as the exceptional report by Mr Oostlander quite rightly emphasises.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is not what the Group of the wants. There was no agreement at the Conference of Presidents. So they decided to wait and I would like that point clarified.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I commend the rapporteur and welcome this excellent initiative. Apart from being an important social phenomenon and a way to improve psychological and physical health, sport is also an excellent educational instrument which helps young people acquire important social skills. That is why I strongly and warmly welcome the celebration of the European Year of Education through Sport 2004. I am most looking forward to seeing the positive impact that sport will have on the lives of young people from disadvantaged communities as a result of this programme. It will present sport as a way of improving the social inclusion of these groups and communities. Nevertheless, I regret that both the Council and the Commission rejected Parliament's amendments providing for the organisation of school competitions which would have allowed winning schools to attend the next Olympic Games in Greece. That said, however, I welcome the Council's recognition of the will of Parliament on this issue.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we are now feeling relieved as our fellow Member, Olivier Dupuis, is fortunately back with us. We should, however, revisit the problems that we were discussing last week so that we are somewhat less hesitant, should we have the misfortune to be in this situation again in the future. First of all, we were facing some serious human rights issues. Can a country detain individuals, without any form of trial, particularly foreign nationals who publicly campaign for democracy and human rights and condemn the breaches committed by the host country? Even if Laotian law permitted this type of ban on demonstrations, it goes without saying that the immediate arrest of peaceful demonstrators was completely disproportionate. Furthermore, it is natural for the European Union to be vigilant about whether or not a country like Laos observes the clause on human rights enshrined in the cooperation agreement that it signed. Secondly, we were facing an institutional challenge that directly concerned the European Parliament, since one of the detainees was an MEP. Of course, Mr Dupuis never asked for preferential treatment. The European Parliament cannot, however, remain indifferent to how one of its members is treated. The credibility and the honour of our institution, and even that of the European Union as a whole, depend on this. This must be clear to everyone so that if we ever have the misfortune to be in this situation again, everyone has a role: the Commission, the Council, the High Representative, the Member States, Parliament, particularly the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy will react quickly and know exactly what to do and how to do it. In fact, everyone did take the appropriate action, and we should welcome this. We now need to do everything we can in order to encourage Laos to move forward, which is the purpose of the resolution that we shall be voting on this week.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to make a comment on today’s agenda. It strikes me that today’s debates will finish around 5.30 p.m., while the votes will not start until 6.30 p.m. We have had this situation for a long time now. It means that for many of the Members, it is just too late to return home at the end of the debate, and they therefore have to stay on until tomorrow, or return home sooner. In my view, it is an excellent thing that we are here, even if we have to burn the midnight oil as far as I am concerned, if we have something to discuss. If that is not the case, then we should not be required to sit here drinking coffee for an hour. I would therefore ask you if you could perhaps put it to the President to see whether this problem can be solved in such a manner that Members need not at any rate stay on any longer than is necessary.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to make a short statement – which I had intended to make yesterday – about events yesterday at Charles de Gaulle Airport. I was on a flight from London to Paris with 28 other passengers, including Mrs Lynne and Baroness Nicholson. The plane was half an hour late. We were then told that, even though there was half an hour until the departure of the Strasbourg flight, we would be transferred to a flight five hours later. Some of us decided not to accept this proposal and made our way to the check-in desk for the original flight, which was then closed. At that gate I found other colleagues, including Mr Hume, who got the Nobel Peace Prize for dealing with the hard men of Ireland – but they are nothing compared to the ground staff at Paris Charles de Gaulle. (Laughter and applause) I then proceeded, because I wanted to talk to the pilot down the .... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE