GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Belarus is the last surviving European bastion of neo-soviet ideology. It is now politically important, as, in 2004, it will become a neighbouring country of the European Union. One can say in its favour that, unlike some of its neighbours, it remains free of inter-ethnic strife and has unilaterally renounced its nuclear arsenal, as well as much of its conventional weaponry. It is also rather surprisingly still enjoying an economic growth rate of 4%. Unfortunately, the country deteriorated into authoritarianism and the repression of linguistic and religious rights after the election of Lukashenko as president in 1994. However, he is no Saddam Hussein. The election led initially to the hope that authority would be upheld, corruption rooted out and the economy put back on track, in particular stopping the asset-stripping and tax evasion seen in other CIS countries. Belarus is currently under enormous pressure to reinforce its borders with Russia and the Ukraine to avoid any further influx of immigrants, and the European Union must cooperate in this area, irrespective of the nature of the government in Minsk. Private enterprise in Belarus cannot function efficiently, and the effects of the Chernobyl disaster are still of grave concern. There is alleged harassment of the opposition, the silencing of critical voices and the establishment of a network of patronage throughout the country. The forthcoming municipal elections in March 2003 will be a test of the potential for favourable political developments in Belarus, and we hope that observers from this Parliament will be invited. The European Union should await the election results and respond towards Belarus accordingly, in line with a step-by-step policy. There is growing appreciation within Belarus of the need for democracy; hence the need for greater western contact with pro-democracy parliamentarians to avoid the risk of self-imposed isolationism. Finally, if the people of Belarus so wish, we must also offer them the prospect of possible EU membership in the longer term.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I too should like to thank Mrs McKenna for the work she has done on this matter as rapporteur. Enormous destruction is caused by oil spills and discharges into the sea of other substances which are damaging to health and to the environment. It is destruction which spreads far and wide. We see before our very eyes the destroyed coastal areas, birds covered in oil, and fish floating on top of the water, and we also hear the reports about the polar bears which have become hermaphrodite because of hormone-affecting substances also supplied through the sea. Sometimes, the pollution occurs by accident, sometimes through indefensible conduct and, at other times, through the deliberate actions of a variety of individuals and companies. But, however it has occurred, the damage to animal life and the environment is equally disastrous and, very often, it of course cuts across national borders. I therefore think it is important that, by means of this proposal, we create the basis for close cooperation between the Member States, with a good information and warning system and with a guarantee of mutual assistance when needed, so that harmful spillages can be prevented or combated effectively. I am able to support the report with the amendments that have been tabled, and I shall only single out a few of the latter. I think it is good that radioactive substances have been included in the report. I also think it is good that pollution due to dumping and to used ammunition has been included. Like Mrs Grôssetete, I think it is important that we establish the polluter-pays principle and, in this regard, I can support the rapporteur, as well as Mrs Grôssetete’s amendment. Finally, I think it is good that we can get the neighbouring coastal countries involved, both in the Baltic area and in the Mediterranean. I hope that, by means of the compromise amendments that have just now been tabled, we can achieve a result that can be translated into effect very quickly and so with no need for any Conciliation Committee procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, having considered this matter, our group supports this proposal. We would very much have appreciated it if the resolution of the Conference of Presidents, which was – as I recall it – unanimous, could have been acted on this week, and if the Chairman of the Convention could have visited Parliament this week. I do not know why this has not been done. The reasons for this remain to be clarified, but I would very much welcome it if the Chairman of the Convention were to join us for our short sitting.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I speak on behalf of Mrs Torres Marques, who for pressing reasons cannot be here, but I shall keep to her ideas and the meaning of her speech. The European Parliament and especially its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has for years been insisting on the need for banks to set up payment systems in the euro zone that would allow citizens to use the euro as if it were a national currency. Despite the existence of fixed exchange rates between the various currencies in the euro zone, cross-border payments are processed with the same charges as domestic payments. The citizens do not understand this: why are payments within the euro zone processed as if they were international payments? Is there or is there not a euro payment zone? The banks have perfected their credit and debit card and electronic purse payment systems at a national level, they have perfected their international operations, and they have forgotten about the euro area. Well, the euro zone is for us a region with a single currency which should have monetary rules in common that are easily understood by the citizens. It is just as well that when a recent Commission study revealed that, far from having fallen, transfer charges in the euro zone had remained high, it showed the need for the draft regulation that we are now examining. The regulation seeks, from January 2002, to equalise the charges for cross-border credit and debit card transfers that each bank performs in its own domestic market. The Commission proposes that the same should occur with bank transfers and cheques from January 2003 onwards. The agrees with the rapporteur’s proposals, and therefore this draft regulation deserves our approval; we also hope that an agreement can be reached with the Council at first reading. Implementation of the regulation must not, in any event, cause domestic charges to rise. In fact, cross-border transfers only represent 1% of the total payments made by the banks, and they are electronic payments which entail an effective reduction in staff costs for the banking system. Thus any use of this regulation to raise charges on domestic payments must be firmly rejected by the European institutions. The citizens have, in fact, already condemned and rejected it. Of the main amendments approved, we highlight the one concerning the penalties to be applied in the event of infringement of the regulation by any banking organisation, as well as an indication of the procedures to follow in other situations, so as to give some assurance to the citizens who use the euro. I believe that, with the approval of this regulation, Parliament will be contributing to a smooth launch of the new currency for the citizens, giving the euro greater credibility and strength, and easing the indispensable cultural and economic transition. We hope that, after the decision of the Ghent European Council, this legislation will be approved as quickly as possible. This political decision will be good for the euro zone, but most of all it will be good for the European Union.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the tragedy of the Arab-Israeli conflict is never too far from our minds or TV screens, and the carefully constructed roadmap now seems to have virtually imploded. Serious mistakes have been made. Clearly the Palestinian Authority was unable or unwilling to rein in the excesses of Islamic and other terrorist groups, as we saw in the Hamas suicide bomb a month ago in Jerusalem. In this context, I welcome the EU's belated banning of the political wing of Hamas from fund-raising in its territory. I also believe that the undermining by Chairman Arafat of Prime Minister Abu Mazen has further muddied the waters, and lends credibility to those who argue that Arafat has no interest in going the last mile for peace and security if he is not at centre stage. However, coded calls for his assassination recently by Israel's Deputy Prime Minister are not helpful, as he was recognised as the elected PA Chairman, and this lowers the moral tone of the debate. Our challenge is to encourage reformists and moderate interlocutors amongst the Palestinians. I met a Professor Nusseibeh two weeks ago in Brussels and he is clearly an example of the type of Palestinian who is acting in good faith and is prepared to make compromises, including over the vexed issue of the right of return and the final status of Jerusalem. Both issues can be solved with imaginative thinking and money. The international community needs to redouble its efforts to reconvene the roadmap to enable a two-state solution with a viable, contiguous state of Palestine, based approximately on the 1967 borders, and a secure Israel living in peaceful, neighbourly coexistence. Otherwise, Islamic fundamentalists throughout the world will use this conflict to galvanise the Islamic world against the West, using it as a pretext to justify worldwide terrorist attacks. Unlike my colleague, Mr Cushnahan, I am not yet convinced that an international military force is the solution needed to end the hostilities and kick-start the peace process, as I do not think that a totally neutral force could ever be assembled. Incidentally, I have been involved in Parliament's working group looking at EU funding to the Palestinian Authority, which is proceeding on schedule. It has been a worthwhile exercise in addressing so many of our taxpayers' concerns about serious allegations of misappropriation of funds, and now we have in place the appropriate mechanisms for scrutiny of the way these monies are being spent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this morning’s session seems to be turning into a private chat among the Dutch contingent, so we shall just continue. The Netherlands is pre-eminently a trading nation, after all. Back in September, during the debate in this Parliament on the failure of the Cancún negotiating round, I made Commissioners Lamy and Fischler aware of the support of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party and myself for restarting promptly while the momentum was still there. In this regard, multilateralism remains the best route to global free trade, and the conclusion of bilateral agreements is detrimental to smaller countries and developing countries. Indeed, these countries benefit from general standards applying worldwide. The Commission sees reform of the WTO as another priority, and I agree with Commissioner Lamy on this point, because there is room for improvement in the way in which the organisation is currently functioning, which is no longer appropriate in 2004. He must bear in mind, however, that it was the members that were to blame for the failure of the negotiations. The most important thing, therefore, is to obtain constructive support among WTO members for the continuation of the Doha Development Round. That will not be easy, however, in view of the US presidential elections this year, because the campaigns will probably be full of protectionist rhetoric. An enhanced role for the Secretariat in Geneva and for the Director-General would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion. The Director-General must be given the right of initiative in order to generate more support and increased commitment on the part of the Member States to putting the negotiations back on track; and also in order to hold the members to the agreements they have made. This enhanced mandate for the Director-General would then have to be set against democratic control by a parliamentary assembly. In Cancún, we gave this another firm push by means of a parliamentary conference. That must continue, because this democratic control really cannot be left in the hands of the NGOs. Firstly, they lack democratic legitimacy and, secondly, Cancún showed once more that these organisations are not exactly striving for the success of the negotiating round. The subject matter of the present agenda should stay the same, in my view, and the Singapore issues and market access play a key role in this. It is precisely developing countries that stand to benefit from a favourable investment climate, reduction in import levies and transparent legislation. The southern countries would profit from trade facilitation; indeed, 80% of all import levies are paid by the developing countries combined. The European Union must also provide other members with better information, however, as my colleague Mr van Velzen has already said. Finally, the Group gives Commissioners Lamy and Fischler a clear field for promoting their strategy and the proposed package in this sphere, and for continuing on this path.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to say on a point of order that the President took absolutely the right line because Mr Ribeiro e Castro did not stand up for UNITA; on the contrary, he signed a motion criticising it. He criticised it in his speech and the President allowed him to respond to your personal attack. To my mind, therefore, the President took absolutely the right line.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, once again we are seeing the same situation. Several Member States are behind in their obligations to reduce their fleets and once again nothing is being done to improve matters. The next report, by Mr Nicholson on cod in the Irish Sea, clearly shows the failure of the present approach to fleet management. The Commission is proposing to extend the MAGP by one more year in order to debate fleet policy in the context of the Green Paper. We support that. We think it is a good idea. However, there needs to be a major rethink about fleet policy. We would agree with the Commission that fleets are too large and must be reduced. We also feel that the Council should wake up and join the real world, because it seems to think that this is unnecessary. As a step in the right direction the support the idea of penalties for those countries which are not observing their legally binding commitments to reduce fleets. We must get serious about this problem and also look at the countries that are claiming to have met their obligations under the MAGP, to ensure that they are not transferring their vessels to other flags. We must ensure that they are doing what the MAGP intends they do in the long run.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me just to apologise. I think you misunderstood what I said. It is not in my nature to be insulting when discussing politics. I do not know what the interpreter said, but under no circumstances did I mean that I had a problem with you, not by any stretch of the imagination. However, Commissioner, the essence of my political question remains and, if you would care to, please reply to it. Did the Council decide yesterday to postpone for a year without waiting to see what we wanted, yes or no? Did the Council decide yesterday to circumvent Parliament’s opinion, yes or no? These are not insults, Commissioner. They are serious conclusions based on the Council’s action. Obviously, you have no reason in the final analysis to act as Council’s advocate. I therefore repeat that under no circumstances did I intend any slight on your honour or your reputation and if you think that I did or if you were given any cause to do so, I apologise. However, I repeat, the problem is how you interpret what the Council did yesterday. You have no reason to try and defend it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it is being proposed that the European Union should have a constitution. The Convention has produced one: it approved the draft version based on a federalist consensus in a way reminiscent of a Politburo-style dictatorship. Once again it is a matter of a coup d’état on the part of the big countries. Qualified majority decisions take away small countries’ right of veto, which, however, the three big countries still have when acting in concert. The Member States are to lose their permanent voting Commissioner, although the right of initiative with regard to all EU legislation will remain a Commission monopoly. The fact that there is to be a president and that foreign policy will not be in the hands of the Commission will make the EU a more decentralised federation than the federalist European Parliament’s delegation would have liked. With the constitution the EU will be militarised and NATO has been written into it. When the other pillars were toppled a new NATO pillar was erected. The non-aligned countries must not sign the declaration regarding collective security guarantees to be annexed to the constitution. The collective defence of the EU in the constitution could also mean collective unlawful invasion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, today’s debate has its pitfalls inasmuch as we are being asked to amend, or to refuse to amend, a system, namely the Eurodac system, which our group has comprehensively rejected. The Eurodac system is part and parcel of a general tendency to criminalise and penalise immigrants and those who are being persecuted the world over. It reveals the true face of liberal Europe, which is setting itself up as a besieged fortress. How can anyone imagine that it is by means of repressive laws that the starving of the earth are to be prevented from coming to Europe, even at the risk of their lives, as has been seen recently at Dover and in Gibraltar. On the contrary, it is, as we all know, these combined weapons of criminalisation which force thousands of foreigners to become illegal immigrants who then fall victim to smugglers, slave merchants or unscrupulous bosses who grossly exploit them. Regularising the status of illegal immigrants en masse is the way to put a spoke in the wheels of all these dealers in human misery. It is these combined weapons of criminalisation which will erode our own freedoms, as witness the French Presidency’s plan, which we shall have to express our opinion on. This plan is aimed at cracking down on anyone who comes to the aid of an immigrant without the proper papers. It is because of these weapons and because of this strategy that, today in France, a boy of Tamil origin is imprisoned with his mother in the Aranc detention centre waiting for a judgement from the Minister of the Interior and, in all likelihood, his expulsion from the country. Recording people’s fingerprints on computer is an attack on individual freedom. It systematically treats asylum seekers as suspects and puts a question mark over the confidentiality of the documents held by the bodies responsible for examining their applications. It infringes the legal protection due to refugees in being applied even to 14-year-olds. It contravenes the International Declaration on the Rights of the Child and, in particular, Article 10 of this. Who, among you here, would dare take the fingerprints of a young lad of 14? The Eurodac project makes criminals of immigrants without proper papers, often deprived of legal status because of the differences in the laws between one European country and another. It fundamentally violates all the international conventions protecting human rights. With this project, Fortress Europe is guilty of failing to assist refugees who are in danger. This is hardly a surprise coming from a liberal Europe which equips the Ankara dictatorship with combat helicopters at the same time as rejecting Kurdish refugees. At a time when a wave of racism and xenophobia is forming across Europe and when consideration is being given to drawing up a Charter of Fundamental Rights, you ought to reject Eurodac, with or without amendments. It is our own freedoms that are at stake.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, for years, Somalia has been left to fend for itself by the international community. After all, there was no credit to be gained. Today, Somalia is a fragmented country ruled by a fragmented Government. The warlords are those who now wield power. The Arta peace talks brought renewed hope. A national transitional Government was installed, but it struggled to establish any authority. The European Union – and I believe Mr Sylla is right – has no choice but to give its emphatic support to this Government, without, however, misjudging the reality in Somalia. A constructive dialogue between the Government and the other leading figures is the only realistic solution. The Governments of Somaliland and Puntland must also be involved in this, and third countries, such as Ethiopia, must be warned against disturbing the peace process in any way. To be able to play a leading role, the Union must, in my opinion, appoint a special envoy for Somalia as a matter of urgency, just as it has now already done in the cases of Ethiopia and Eritrea. In fact, as far as I am concerned, this could be one and the same person. Now that there is at long last a prospect of sustainable peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia, we must avoid an unstable Somalia at all costs. We must employ all available means to stop the balkanisation of Somalia, and the Union can play an important role in this.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am grateful to the Commissioner for his introduction. There are actually only a few questions of importance not only to the consumer, but also to the sector itself. The very first question we have to ask is whether Europe finally determined what it is that we do not want to let in. I sometimes feel sorry for the Commissioner, because he can only implement what has been agreed in the Member States. The order did not become valid until 6 February. This means that the system governing the Commission’s relations with the Member States – after all, you cannot always do everything – probably still leaves something to be desired. Moreover, I wonder what the situation is as regards meat, because the order stipulates 1 January as the date on which imports are no longer permitted. What about meat that has been imported from those countries prior to that date? My next question is as follows. I gather that there is now also a problem in the United States. Admittedly, it is not the real avian influenza as we know it in Asia, but it appears to be related. What do we do with those countries? What do the consumers want? They want the guarantee that they receive safe products. They also want sound information, which states that, since you normally do not eat raw meat, chicken meat in a different composition or other method of preparation can do no harm. Let us make sure we can provide this collective information. A number of Members have already mentioned vaccines. I see this as an area in which Europe should develop far more resources and scope in order to act as one.

Political group: PPE-DE