GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Briefly Chair, I have heard that answer, and it does not convince me that these minimum standards are going to be raised at this Seville meeting of the Millennium Round. Quite frankly it seems to me that we shrink away from many of the issues just because it is the WTO. We have to have some answers from a European body as well. We have to know where you stand precisely on these issues. They are clearly issues central to the liberty and wellbeing of ordinary people around the world and they affect us directly in the products we buy. We should do more about that. We clearly also have links with ILO which have been tested here to the extreme. They have called for many of the things we are talking about. Just one more thing Mr President: if we want an answer to some of these things, just look at the way the WTO has reacted to the Canadians taking the asbestos ban that occurred unilaterally in France to the WTO. Asbestos is a killer dust which is killing tens of thousands of people in this Community and is going to the WTO, and we are not afraid to take that issue on. We should not be afraid to take on other issues of core labour standards as well. I remind the Council of this and wish that they should do just that.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, is the price of our coffee maintained at the cost of our conscience? Coffee is one of the basic products that constitute exports, and for many poor, heavily indebted countries, it is the main source of income. Countries such as Burundi, Ethiopia and Uganda rely on coffee exports for more than 50% of their income. The situation of the world coffee market, therefore, is not a secondary, minor issue. It is at the very heart of world injustice, which condemns millions of people to poverty and distress. In this regard, the coffee crisis is clear proof of the failure of the world policy of aggravated liberalisation and prioritising market forces. In fact, it is the international institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO that encourage these countries to follow an economic policy oriented towards the external market. Suffocated by debt and subject to the orders of the IMF, which can sometimes act as the world moneylender, these countries throw themselves wholeheartedly into production in sectors in which they possess a relative advantage in relation to the developed countries. In the case of coffee, this advantage is favourable climatic conditions. The WTO then promises them free access to the world market. Due to the law of supply and demand, however, market value is unstable and, when prices fall, the multinationals that control the market take steps to preserve their profit margins. The entire drop in the market value is therefore passed on to small farmers and plantation workers, so much so that consumers in developed countries do not even see a drop in the price of their cup of coffee. Not to mention working conditions for women and child labour. This has been proven. An end to world injustice cannot be achieved by greater liberalisation, more free trade or increased deregulation – quite the opposite. What coffee farmers need is an international coffee market that is regulated to a greater degree, to prevent overproduction taking hold, so that the quality of products is guaranteed and controlled, so that profits in this sector are divided fairly and so that decent working conditions are guaranteed. Let us hope that we remember this lesson at the next round table of the International Coffee Organisation, at the next G8 summit and, most importantly, at the next WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun in September. We shall continue to be extremely vigilant, Commissioner.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, many tragedies there are in the world but none more moving than those that affect children. There are none worse than the ones we have heard about today involving trades in children. I want to refer to one of those trades and that is the trade that takes place in adoption. In the United Kingdom, in the 1960s, we had some 25,000 adoptions, with 12,500 under one-year-olds. In the 1970s that figure had fallen to 13,000 and the under one-year-olds to 3,000. By the 1990s that had dropped again to 7,000 with only 900 under one-year-olds. Much of the differences stem of course from the wider and freer availability of abortion. In Britain the figure is one in five pregnancies, in London it is one in three. More children who are available for adoption have disabilities – mental or physical or behavioural problems – and so couples, not surprisingly, look further afield for babies to adopt. And further afield, indeed, there are babies available for adoption. The first duty for all of us should be to the child. For any child that needs a family, the preference is for its own family and if that is not available then a family in its own community. If that is not available then a family, perhaps with a different background, within its own country. If that is not available, then, and only then, should one start looking for a home abroad. But it must be a properly vetted and loving home and the couple taking on the responsibility for that child must show an understanding of the child's background. Too often we have seen abuses in the system which puts couples' wishes before the child's interests. So we have seen rackets developing in baby-selling, mothers having their babies stolen, mothers being bribed to part with their children, mothers being conned that the child is going to benefit from a good start in life and return to the family when, of course, there is no such intention. That is why we have the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. That is why I ask the Commission to make sure that Hague Convention is properly implemented throughout the European Union nations. I ask for a report to be brought forward to show the state of law in each member country and the state of legal practice. On this, the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we must stand up for those children, for their rights to be children. That means supporting children in need because of illness, or disability or hunger or poverty or lack of educational opportunities. It means an end to child labour and exploitation and the awful trades in children. So much of that is caused by the cruelty or neglect of adults and the least adults can do is to ensure that when a child genuinely has no family we apply the provisions of the Inter-Country Convention when giving that child another chance in life through adoption.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is just a brief statement to declare that I do not totally agree with the Maaten report either. Although I am well aware that we have a duty to give consumers all the relevant information regarding the risks presented by the products they use, I do not feel that it is our duty to adopt prohibitionist laws, particularly where third countries are concerned. The report contains excessive statements which are reminiscent of a certain type of terrorist propaganda which I do not feel would advance our awareness-raising operation, also because whenever we go to extremes in these sectors and these fields we obtain the opposite effects to those desired. I would stress another point: I come from Italy, which is a Mediterranean country, and I would like to emphasise that the attempt to reduce subsidies for tobacco plantations is a very delicate issue. I would ask the Commission to think again for thousands of jobs are directly or indirectly jeopardised. There are a whole range of activities connected to the tobacco industry, which we must protect at all costs.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the debate on the future of the cohesion policy is a very timely one. I wish to thank the Commission for its willingness to share this debate with Parliament and, at the same time, for the visits undertaken to Member States. They are very necessary. My concern is not just how regional policy can be made to work effectively both in the present Member States and in the countries that have applied for membership but also the continuation of structural policy in the present Member States in the next Structural Funds period. Structural Funds policy is currently managed in too cumbersome a manner. Now is a good time to consider, for example, how we might learn from the delay in the preparatory procedures for programmes for the next period. How can we become more effective, achieve better results and reduce bureaucracy? In this connection I would also like to enquire what the Commission’s position is regarding what enlargement means for the overall funding of structural policy. Is the Commission prepared to increase structural policy appropriations during the next Structural Funds period should the situation regarding European economic and social cohesion so demand? At the same time I would also like to communicate to the Commission that a funding model for enlargement is not acceptable where those having to pay would be the poor regions of the existing EU countries, where there are still lasting problems owing to difficult natural conditions, long distances or sparse populations. The EU must also show solidarity in the future so that new money with a new financial instrument can be found for the new challenges of structural policy, where those that pay would include those central regions that will be the first to benefit economically from enlargement.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I invite you to follow the straightforward train of thought I am about to present. You stated that the Council has tackled the issue of the conflict in Western Sahara, and that a range of measures have been taken aimed at rebuilding trust between the parties. Do you believe that a measure of trust between the parties is that a Member State, one as important as the United Kingdom, should be selling arms to one of those parties when a cease-fire is in force? Secondly, continuing my straightforward train of thought, which code of conduct are we referring to? My impression is that many individuals and organisations must be referring to a different code of conduct from the one you mentioned. The code you mentioned might or might not exist. Thirdly, I hope you will give up that metaphysical position which allows you to state that you support Mr Baker’s efforts without specifying exactly how you propose to do so. I would be grateful if you could explain how you plan to support Mr Baker.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, unfortunately, I only have an unreasonably short amount of time to present my opinion of the legal basis, and that of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. This is not about having some kind of hidebound discussion for legal experts, an exercise in legal hair splitting as it were, but concerns an eminently political issue, namely that of competences and the demarcation thereof. Even a court of law does not simply apply law on its own in such cases. It creates and drafts law, and further develops it. As co-legislators, we would do well to take part in this drafting process. And we are doing just that in as much as we are performing this demarcation, this separating off, of our own accord. Turning briefly to the points I would like to make: Article 152 of the Treaty expressly rules out approximation of laws in matters pertaining to health. This may be regrettable – I also have every sympathy as to why this should be so – but that is how matters stand. Article 95, the general clause on the internal market, as it were, serves as a legal basis as far as the strengthening of the internal market is concerned. And we should not complain if health issues are acknowledged as a matter of priority in this context. Demarcation and assessment cannot be undertaken on the basis of headings, nor can it be done by drafting a directive of the kind that the Commission puts forward in a markedly mechanical and often completely disjointed manner. It cannot be accomplished in the way that it used to be either, particularly as the principle of subsidiarity has now been enshrined in the Treaties. It can only be done on the basis of the factual content of a proposal, and when it comes to amendments, on the basis of the factual content of these amendments. However, the decisive factor will not be whether it has any implications for the internal market. This will always be the case, which is why any attempt at demarcation would actually be pointless. All that ever matters is whether the main emphasis and aim of a directive serve to promote the internal market, to dismantle barriers to trade and to promote the free movement of goods, or whether the main emphasis is different. Indeed no one has so much as mentioned yet whether that is the main emphasis of this proposal. Therefore on a final note, I urge you to reject the committee’s proposal, the directive in its present form – and I stress, in its present form, not in any form – on account of its lacking a legal basis and transgressing the principle of subsidiarity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to welcome my mother, my sister and my wife who are sitting in the public gallery. They have, at last, visited me in Strasbourg and they supplied the cue for my first explanation of vote when they told me it was lunchtime. ‘We can smell Italian food,’ they said, ‘we can smell Parmigiano Reggiano cheese, Parma ham and steaming spaghetti. So you are talking about a European Food Authority? Well, where else to locate the European Food Authority but Parma?’ I was therefore delighted to vote in favour. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jarzembowski, thank you for the work that you have done, but I will not support the compromise, because I see this compromise as lacking an essential link, namely that authorisations should be used in EU ports. We had approved this in Parliament at second reading, but it is not included in the compromise. A competent authority is entitled to apply for an authorisation, but it is not required to do so, and I see that as a key issue. Both at first and at second reading, I worked hard to improve the article on authorisations, even with the help of the Commissioner in a number of areas. Both at first and at second reading, we managed to improve this licensing system. Despite this, Mr Jarzembowski, I have a feeling that we could have gone a little further during conciliation, and that we perhaps should have spent all of our time creating a better text on that score too. I am, in any case, in favour of free port services. In my opinion, everyone should be able to offer their services there, but these free services should be counterbalanced by a licensing system which should be regulated in such a way that we can make our own demands in the areas of environment, public services and, last but not least, social legislation. In the Flemish ports, relations among dock workers, employers and dock installations have deteriorated a great deal over the past eighteen months. Whatever the result of next Thursday’s vote may be, this worsening situation will need to be addressed with or without a directive. I would therefore ask everyone involved to gather around the negotiating table in order to discuss the future of our ports and to ensure that it is not jeopardised, with or without a directive. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
As Member of Parliament of a country that has a Baltic coastline, I want to promote, in every way I can, the protection of the marine environment in the Baltic Sea area. I regard the amendments on agricultural effluent proposed in Annex III as very positive. In my opinion, the prevention of pollution by ships is also very important, and it is indeed with regard to that point that a few factors should be taken into account, which I would now like to mention. There are great differences between the parties to the agreement in the way they comply with the agreement on environmental protection. This is partly owing to technical resources. The states of the European Union comply scrupulously with the terms of the agreement, but there are enormous defects in Russia and the Baltic countries, for example, regarding equipment for collecting waste that comes from ships. Monitoring by the authorities is not as efficiently organised as in the EU countries either. A reform of the rules means considerable levels of investment for our industry, so it is important that the new rules make it possible for us to achieve tangible results with regard to the protection of the environment. In the future, we should try to bring pressure on new Member States to adopt the right sort of attitude and procure the correct equipment. - Fraga Estévez report (A5-0067/1999) - Helsinki European Council (B5-0310/1999)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is as a friend of Israel that I am explaining tonight why I have voted for the joint resolution. Indeed, while I regret a certain ambiguity in the wording and while I do not accept the failure to mention that there is a multitude of Palestinian groups prepared to do anything to wipe out the State of Israel and the Israelis by means of violence and war, it is my very friendship for the Israelis that makes me implore them to end the armed repression against children. It is also my friendship for Israel and my esteem for the Palestinians that makes me implore them to do everything possible to achieve peace, even if that means great sacrifice on both sides. Their security and their medium- and long-term existence are at stake and no doubt world peace too, at this moment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I fully support the report by Mrs Berès on the Commission communication on the prospects for monetary union. I think, however, that after the tragic events of 11 September the proposed measures and experiments should be implemented much sooner if we want the monetary union to fully perform the role that awaits it in fighting terrorism, maintaining economic growth and the competitiveness of Europe, and affirming a policy of peace and international cooperation that will isolate terrorism in developing countries. I refer first of all to the need to face the slow-down in economic growth by means of coordination of our economic and social policies, countering the economic cycle. This can be achieved through enhanced cooperation measures between Eurogroup members, resulting in a real government by agreement of the monetary union, able to question decisions by the European Central Bank with an authority at least as great as that shown a few weeks ago by the United States Federal Reserve. I also refer to the urgent need within the monetary union above all to achieve the greatest transparency and a reciprocal information system on movements of capital, overcoming the restrictions of bank secrecy so as to be able, Mr Karas, to strike at the transfer of resources linked to terrorist funding, the laundering of dirty money from organised crime, and the offence of tax evasion. I shall close, Mr President, by also mentioning an international cooperation policy which will allow long-term contracts for supplying Europe with raw materials to be drawn up also in euro.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am grateful for the answer of the Commissioner. I think there is a bit of a difference from the situation in Nigeria because, as far as I recall from the newspapers, this mainly concerned bank accounts in Switzerland and some money was recovered there. But I am mainly thinking about physical properties in countries of the European Union, and probably also in the United States. Investigations could probably be made into what has been purchased in the last two years or so, and that could be recovered and this fact made public. Then the people in Zimbabwe could ask themselves: Where did the money come from? How were they able to do that? All those things in Europe are completely public and it just requires an official of the Commission to look into it and do some studies on it and then publish it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, today, we are holding the concluding debate on the accession of ten candidates to the European Union. For none of those ten countries has a date been set, and so they are encouraged to consider themselves wholly responsible for the success of the accession process. There are still two candidates, Romania and Bulgaria, that having further to row to the finishing line, and Romania is lagging behind the most. The Group of the European People’s Party wholeheartedly endorses the report by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, which we see as an important contribution to highlighting any problems Romania is left with, particularly in a bid to meet the political criteria of Copenhagen. This is Romania's own responsibility: the key to success lies in Bucharest, as the Commissioner has already stated. This list of problems has prompted the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to send a unanimous warning to Bucharest. The tone was clear enough to wake up the Romanian Government. A reorientation of the process is what is now called for. Initially, there was a large-scale lobby campaign on the part of the Romanian Government, with the message that reorientation was unnecessary. Much more constructive was the more recent list by Romania's Prime Minister stating tasks yet to be done, as well as the recent Cabinet reforms, in order to give the negotiations with the EU more chance of success. In this way, a foundation has been laid for observing the obligations of Copenhagen. We are very pleased that the Council and Commission share Parliament's concern. As the prospect of enlargement on 1 May instils fear of the unknown among the European citizens – as the Commissioner has already pointed out – we should apply the greatest possible care in dealing with the later accessions. The public must be really convinced that the candidate Member States offer them the same certainties as the 15 current Member States. Corruption, about which humanitarian organisations in our countries receive many complaints, the freedom of press, also the subject of many complaints, problems with the judiciary and child care: these are the major points that need to be discussed and resolved as a matter of priority. The many letters they have sent indicate that this approach has sparked a great deal of enthusiasm among the citizens in Romania. It is important to show them that we are concerned about their fate. In this light, the contribution by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne is crucial.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I know you are respecting Parliament's wishes concerning the number of part-sessions and our votes at previous plenary sessions on where they should be held, but could you confirm where we are going to have the meeting on 1 May 2004? A number of political groups and parties within this Parliament will decide how they vote on the eleventh plenary and its siting. Their vote will determine whether we meet in Brussels or in Strasbourg on that particular day. There is a precedent for us to meet in Brussels because the part-session on Saturday, 2 May 1998, when Parliament gave its verdict on the Ecofin decision on which Member States should join the euro, was held in Brussels.

Political group: PPE-DE