GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, our position has been very well explained by Mr Wurtz and Mr Sylla. I only want to highlight three aspects. The first one – and I say this as a medical historian – concerns the fact that, in a continent that has been destroyed by colonisation, which is the case with Africa, it is not an accident that the AIDS epidemic has occurred, but rather it is a consequence of the impoverishment of that continent, and therefore we are responsible, as the former colonial power, for helping Africa. The second is that, given the prevalence of AIDS in Africa and knowing that thousands of young people cross the Mediterranean into Europe, via Spain and other countries, and also bearing in mind the incubation period of the disease, which is from five or six to twelve years, we can calculate that a third of these young people are infected with AIDS and are living in Europe. This issue, therefore, affects us directly. Thirdly and finally, I would like to point out that the most suitable instrument we have – this has been demonstrated by the UN by means of the WHO in the fight against smallpox – is the WHO. It is incredible that we have abandoned such an important international instrument as the World Health Organisation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, according to the Rules of Procedure, which we must respect, you need not consult the House. Rule 37 makes it quite clear that the Commission may, at any time, ask for permission to make a statement. If the Commission is willing to make such a statement you do not need to put it to the House. You can so decide under your authority as President.

Political group: PSE
My colleague Mr Alyssandrakis has raised the issue. I have no further question; I am satisfied with this.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Amendment No 709 may have to be adjusted technically to reflect the result of the vote today. This amendment aims at offsetting the cost of amendments adopted, so that Parliament remains within the self-imposed ceiling of 20% of Heading 5. A number of amendments rejected in the Committee on Budgets have been retabled and, if they are adopted, their cost will have to be offset by adjusting Amendment No 709 accordingly. (The President established that there were no objections to this proposal)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the Commission President has told us that the institutions must be responsible, transparent and efficient and he has promised to bring forward a White Paper on governance. If we need to improve the quality of governance of the Union, we might make a start with the Commission's work programme itself. We should be focusing policy-making on areas where EU-wide action is indispensable. We should be ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is fully respected. Is this really the case with the Commission's recommendation on a common European format for curriculum vitaes: No 379 on their list of measures to implement this year? Each new legislative proposal should include a justification of why action at Union level is necessary and we might help, as my colleague Mr Clegg has suggested, by establishing a standing scrutiny committee in this House to ensure that measures proposed meet the criteria for subsidiarity and proportionality. Your state of the Union speech, Mr Prodi, should be accompanied by a detailed list of proposals individually justified and explained, not hidden away in annexes to the document. The proposal should be the outcome of serious debate in the College of Commissioners, not passed on the nod as A points. Our committee should cross-examine individual Commissioners on the proposals in their area of responsibility. Finally, the annual work programme should come to a vote here in Parliament. Nice showed the failures of intergovernmental Europe. It is up to us to make a more persuasive case for a federal Europe.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, it is no secret that the Green/EFA Group does not share the majority view of Parliament over the outcome of the Doha meeting. For us, with a few exceptions, it was not a success. It was an unedifying example of the richer countries bullying the poorer ones and has prompted many to assert that the so-called victory in Doha was a failure for democracy. While it is certainly true the developing countries asserted themselves in a much stronger way than ever before – and that is to be commended – it is also true that the outcome from Doha falls far short of the development round which was promised us. That is not only the view of the Green/EFA Group, but also of the vast majority of NGOs from both north and south, and of many of the southern representatives there as well. Let me remind you of some of the interventions in the Doha plenary debate. The Indian Minister of Commerce, Mr Murasoli Muran, said that the only conclusion that could be drawn is that developing countries have little say in the agenda-setting of the WTO; it appears that the whole process was a mere formality and we are being coerced against our will. Let me remind you of what Jamaica said. Ambassador Mr Randsford Smith said that we regret that the draft texts presented to this ministerial conference, as at the outcome of the Geneva preparatory process, do not sufficiently reflect or capture the position and proposals of developing countries. I could give you many more similar quotations. Let us have a look in a bit more detail at what they really mean. There was only a very brief acknowledgement of the need to review implementation issues: that was a key agenda issue for the developing countries going into Doha. The language on the phasing out of agricultural exports subsidies has been substantially watered down, due to EU objections. As a result, farmers in the south will continue to have their livelihoods devastated. As Tanzania's Trade Minister, Mr Iddi Simba, said, the wrong policy on agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa. There is no commitment to an early phase-out of textiles and garment quotas because of strong resistance from the United States. Demands for development linked to the promotion of food security, which is being promoted by many developing countries, were completely ignored. Commissioner Lamy, I do not expect you to agree with this analysis, but at the very least you should acknowledge the very real anger and frustration of the developing countries throughout the conference and pledge that in the negotiations that are now beginning their interests will genuinely be at the forefront of our priorities.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted in favour of the report, especially since quite a few of my amendments were approved by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and have now also been approved in plenary. Thus, the European Parliament has, for example, emphasised to Turkey, in recital P, that trade blockades constitute an obstacle in the region. It has also pointed out, in recital U, that ‘criticisms have been directed by international civil society against the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project’. ‘Securing religious freedom’ in the South Caucasus has been incorporated into recital D. I regret, however, that my amendment concerning the demand for Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide between 1915 and 1918 was not adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. In the interests both of itself and of the development of the whole region, Turkey has, in this respect, a lot to learn from the way in which Germany has dealt with the dark historical period of the Second World War and, especially, with its annihilation of the Jewish people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I was hoping to be able to congratulate Commissioner Bolkestein on a normally forthright reply, but I listened to that reply and I wonder what I have heard. 'The Commission is reviewing it.' I am asking the Commission, are they going to do anything about it? We have a situation where we believe in the Single Market, where citizens move now in increasing numbers around the continent. They would like to be able to watch French television in Germany; they would like to be able to watch British television if they retire to Spain. The reality is that the Single Market is not working. I would like to have just a glimmer of a more positive statement from the Commissioner that not only is he going to review this problem, but he is actually going to do something about it and make a positive proposal to the Parliament.

Political group: PPE-DE
Draftsman of the opinion for the Committee on Petitions. – Mr President, we would like to thank Mrs Korhola for her work on this complex document. In the Committee on Petitions we have a large number of petitions which relate to the particular directives concerned in this important report. It is very clear to us that the public want to be involved, they want to be informed and they want information in good time about particular proposals. We often hear complaints from the public about the lack of information, that it comes late, it is incomplete, it is difficult to understand. We have often found through those petitions that there are a number of Member States that have very poorly applied the directives which are mentioned here and we have seen court cases resulting from that. Our committee was extremely clear. We want the widest possible definition of 'public'. We have found in the issues raised with us that it is not just environmental NGOs, or people living in an area that is directly affected. We have come across small businesses, fishermen and others who have felt that particular schemes affect them and therefore they are interested parties. We also thought it was important that the area of policy should be looked at as well, because one of the questions we often get is 'what is the context of a particular development going ahead?', particularly where that is linked at times to European Union policy, such as CAP spending and spending on the Structural Funds. We also find that people want access to resources in order to be able to understand the information they are given. Sometimes we find complaints come to our committee effectively to have those environmental impact assessments assessed, because those organisations lack the resources to fully participate within the planning process and it is vital that we look at that, certainly at Member State level.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Members who have been elected to this House have been elected by people of Europe to speak for Europe, to determine what role Europe can play on the international scene. I am encouraged by the statement of Mr Danielsson, the confidence of Mr Solana and the excellent analysis of Commissioner Patten of the situation on the ground. I was horrified to witness in the delegation last week the extent to which Palestine is a military occupation. People of Europe have no idea of this. It is unbelievable that there is a situation where the Palestinian Legislative Council cannot even meet. Mayors of towns like Hebron were not able to escort us to places that our ambassador had arranged for us to see. There is wrong on both sides, of course there is. What I am against is the 33 years of negotiations which have led to nowhere, no solution, no peace. Therefore, I believe that we in the European Union should take a more active role: supportive – not to replace the Americans in the peace process – but to support and give confidence to both sides that we are a fair, just, impartial broker. We should also support the United Nations and the resolutions, because if UN resolutions are to be respected by countries like Iraq and Cuba, then they must also be respected by Israel and the Palestinians. That is something that I hope Mr Solana and the Council will impress on both sides: if there are international agreements where there is international law, then both sides should abide by them. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, following the vote, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets to tell us whether he has at his disposal the appropriations called for in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the motion for a resolution on fires in Europe for which we have just voted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is a great temptation in politics to consider everything to be a matter of negotiation which can be agreed on amongst people. So that we might remember what we are dealing with, I will reiterate a few facts about climatic warming. I would like to remind you that there is now ample scientific proof regarding this matter, and that climatic warming is a hard fact. There is just one party we have to negotiate with, and that is nature, which does not make compromises. It just is. The latest time series analyses of seawater temperatures say the same as what we have known about air temperatures for a long time. During the last hundred years the seas have warmed up by 0.6 degrees, and the trend is accelerating. In terms of average temperatures this is a very great change. Glaciers are melting; 85% of them are receding at a very fast rate, as much as several tens of metres a year at their worst. The Andean ice caps are in danger of disappearing altogether. The polar icecaps have shrunk by 25% in the last three years. In northern areas of continents the permafrost is melting at a dramatic rate, especially in central Siberia and Alaska. This also has large-scale effects on the exploitation of natural resources in these regions. If we allow global warming to continue, the dreaded, worst-case scenario in northwestern Europe may well take place. Warming could divert North Atlantic sea currents, causing northern Fennoscandia to have a far more severely cold climate than it does now as a result. As the glaciers melt, the so-called Atlantic pump will cease working and the warm Gulf Stream coming up from the tropics and its extension, the North Atlantic Current, will stop flowing. This could result in the whole of northwestern Europe becoming colder, which palaeo-oceanographic studies show could happen suddenly, with catastrophic results. The same facts reveal themselves in every direction. Just recently the Red Cross confirmed what other aid organisations have been saying: experience of an increased number of natural disasters shows that the change can be put down to global warming. Unless we act quickly and, furthermore, put pressure on others also to act quickly, these new phenomena will increase exponentially. Bonn needs to be a success.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I would firstly like to thank you for the efforts you have made and the strategy you have employed in preparing for the Doha Summit, to promote fairer and more balanced sustainable development on a world scale, which contributes to respect for fundamental social rights and the protection of the environment, the benefits of which also reach the least-developed countries. Kofi Annan recently said that the Doha Summit must be the development summit. If this is to be the case, it is essential that the developing countries can be fully integrated into the structures of the WTO and they must be given easier access to world trade. That is why I want to insist on the importance of the technical measures for developing countries, because it is these measures which will allow these countries to take full advantage of the commercial opportunities offered by the liberalisation of the markets. Repealing or renegotiating the agreements already adopted is not the solution. On the contrary, in Doha the European Union must remind all the member countries of the WTO that it is necessary to respect the commitments made in the existing agreements, just as the European Union has respected its commitments. I am thinking specifically of the textile industry, which has strictly respected its commitment to open up its market, increasing quotas and progressively increasing the application of the GATT rules in the sector, which is something that not all countries have done, including the most developed countries. It is true that trade, even if it is multilateral, will not in itself resolve the inequalities of our planet, but it may reduce them by reconciling the interests and concerns of all the parties involved, especially those of the weakest. The European Union has proven experience in this task and we hope that after Doha, by following the line we have taken until now, Commissioner, we can finally succeed in it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like first to congratulate the United States of America, the puppet masters at this convention. Eighteen months after they bombed hell out of Afghanistan, the heroin crop in that country is now greater than ever. What a brilliant strategy the Americans must have! It is hard to find anyone who believes that the existing drugs policies are a success. It would be a ridiculous claim to make, were they to do so. So it should simply be common sense to evaluate current policies, assess their effectiveness and consider alternative options. And common sense it might be to the majority of people; but not, I fear, to the delegates to this convention. They might as well all be in the pay of the drug barons, because the effect of their determination to pursue the policies of prohibition will simply be to line the pockets of those same criminals, discarding more intelligent approaches which could reduce the real harm to individuals and to the rest of society. The truth is that prohibition is not the solution to the problems, it is the principal cause of them. It is prohibition which creates the profits of the drug barons. It is prohibition which kills users by denying them the information they need about the drugs they put into their bodies. It is prohibition which feeds the cancer of corruption which does so much harm to our society. My view – and my hope – is that prohibition will one day be replaced by government regulation; but I do not say that this is a policy which should be imposed on every nation. I say to my Swedish colleagues and to the United States that they should be free to develop the drugs policies they think appropriate for their own nations, but that others should be free to develop their own strategies to explore more effective solutions to deal with this terribly difficult problem.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like you to inform us as to whether there is any truth in the rumour that – and if this were to happen, I believe it would be disastrous for the information policy of the European Parliament – the press reports covering the part-sessions in all languages of the European Union are to be discontinued. These press reports have always been extremely useful as they reach a wide audience and make known in each language the activities of the MEPs speaking a particular language or from a particular national party. That is why it is something that we, if you like us older MEPs and Members of the previous European Parliament, are quite perturbed about. If this is the intention, then we would like to know.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I wanted to take advantage of your presence here today to raise a question which, I think, will be of interest to the European Parliament, given that it has passed resolutions on the subject. As you know, this year's Miss World beauty pageant is due to be held in Nigeria on 7 December. Quite apart from any objections one might have to beauty pageants per se, I think it is unsuitable for such a dazzling international event to be staged in a country which condemns women to death by stoning, as in the recent case of Αmina Lawal. I think that we should raise our voice in protest in order to encourage other states to follow the example set by Belgium, France, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland and other countries, so that no Member State of the European Union is represented at this disgraceful beauty pageant in a country which has no respect for women's fundamental rights.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we are hardened to the fact that people are still dying of hunger and disease in this developed, globalised community of ours. They could be saved with modern medicines and food that is thrown away. Cheap aid programmes would mean the lives of six million children under the age of five could be saved each year. We accept the fact that people amass huge sums in profits worldwide. It is common to steal billions. It is not true that if individuals amass wealth on a colossal scale it will benefit the community at large. There is a limit to hunger, but not to greed. The best remedy is taxation. The rich oppose it. It means sharing. Charity is not solidarity; sharing is. Capitalism thrives on greed, and so does poverty. Ladies and gentlemen, let us resolve the problem of deprivation in the same way as with the wars in Europe: through cooperation.

Political group: PSE
I wholeheartedly support this report by my Socialist colleague which calls for the establishment of general principles and requirements of food law and for a European Food Authority. Food Safety is of great concern to the majority of the European Union's citizens and it is therefore vital that this Authority will be efficient, democratic and transparent once it is fixed. In such a way, the role proposed for Parliament will ensure that this body will remain under close scrutiny and that it will prove to be as legitimate as possible. Moreover, it is highly desirable that the future location of this Authority should be physically independent from other EU institutions. This will ensure that it remains independent and thus more credible in citizens' eyes. Finally, the call for close cooperation with the relevant bodies is pertinent: when there is a suspected food risk it makes sense that the Authority should capitalise on the knowledge available in other related associations.

Political group: PSE