GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in view of the Dutch connection with Indonesia, I would like to start by saying that I am completely astonished by the way in which the world order has again shown such extraordinary naivety when it comes to the international rule of law and the conduct of the Security Council. Everyone knows that in Indonesia, the real power lies with a broad military leadership of complex composition, topped by what purport to be political parties. And everyone knows that the Indonesian military had no intention whatsoever of stopping the militias, indeed it has itself been actively involved in orchestrating the operations that have taken place in recent days. Notwithstanding all this, the world has allowed itself to discuss the situation in formally legal terms, in the expectation that Indonesia would do the right thing. Such naivety is almost tantamount to provocation and ought, in the fullness of time, to be a lesson to us in other situations. That is my first comment. My second comment is as follows: it is my fervent wish that when this House discusses the question of Indonesia, it draws a clear distinction between the military regime of Indonesia, the referendum that has taken place and which reflects a longstanding and deep transformation process that has only just begun in an enormous empire, of which East Timor is only a very small part, and the enormous suffering endured by the Indonesian people. Just as we must give unequivocal support to East Timor, and I support the sanctions and give my signature to and support the resolution, so we must also stand by the people of Indonesia as a whole. We must deliver humanitarian aid to them, but also other forms of aid too, for building up society for example. It would be a mistake of historic importance if we were to neglect the Indonesian people in so many other areas of the Indonesian archipelago. In my view, the best way to support East Timor is to support the Indonesian people as well. Both need democracy and an international system of law, and as a European Parliament we must render our services to both.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we must welcome the International Conference on Financing for Development, as this is an essential theme in the debate on reducing aid to developing countries. For more than 20 years, the UN has told donor countries that they must dedicate 0.7% of their GNP to state development aid, in accordance with OECD standards, but only four countries are respecting this commitment. Aid is decreasing in general and the current average is 0.2%. Developing countries are suffering badly from the gradual and structural deterioration in trade terms for basic products and are caught up in the vicious cycle of paying back often illegitimate debts, as well as the interest charged on them. How can we raise financial resources for the human, economic and social development of these people, given these circumstances? Our hopes rest on Monterrey therefore, unless the outcome has already been determined and the American positions dominate this conference, as was the case at Doha. By faithfully following the liberal principles of development that the international institutions and the European Commission have been applying for 20 years, the document before us, just as the Monterrey consensus, never calls neo-liberal globalisation into question. However, the income of the population of developing countries has continued to fall over the same period, which proves this formula is ineffective and counter-productive. It is failing, but we carry on regardless. I do not know if the draft consensus for Monterrey, which does not propose any ambitious objectives, any practical financial measures or a timetable, is set in stone. If that is the case, and if the conference limits itself to making wonderful statements which will never be followed up, I think that we must cancel it and the millions of euro that have been earmarked to organise the conference must be given directly to the least-advanced countries. It would be a shame because there are grounds to condemn and criticise, but there are also grounds to discuss and, in relation to mobilising aid, propose cancelling debt, taxing capital and reforming the WTO. The European Union must seize this opportunity to push through the adoption of ambitious objectives as well as restrictive measures, which could enable poverty levels to be cut in half by 2015. The EU must reiterate the commitment made at Gothenburg to request the Member States to increase their aid to 0.7%. The governments and parliaments which agreed to the principle of a Tobin-type tax must demonstrate their interest in regulating the financial markets and redistributing wealth towards the south. Mr President, all those taking part in the summit must ensure that it is a success. The European Union has a responsibility to do this.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we were all delighted yesterday when the Sakharov Prize was awarded to Mr Gusmão who was imprisoned by the authoritarian regime in Djakarta. Through him, the Sakharov Prize honours the struggle of all those men and women throughout the world who are fighting for more justice, democracy and freedom. This is why I am asking you to look closely at the attacks on human rights in Djibouti and specifically at the situation of the political prisoners. This is particularly justified given that, as already stated, many Member States have very close relations with Djibouti. Yesterday, several associations in France strongly protested when France again prepared to grant aid to this country. You should know that for the last nine years the bulk of this country’s own budgetary resources has been devoted to financing the civil war. Wages and pensions have not been paid for seven months. Despite the previous resolutions of this House, reinforced by the International Federation of Human Rights League’s report confirming the precarious conditions of detention of the political prisoners, acts of violence, humiliation and attacks on the physical integrity of individuals are still standard practice in the prisons of Djibouti, particularly in Gabode Prison. Here in May, forty-five hunger strikers were refused access to medical care and some died. The families of prisoners are subject to constant pressure and threats. Women are raped and tortured. The army and police are carrying out military operations in the districts of Tadjoura and Obock and are subjecting the population in the north of the country to a suicidal food blockade. I would remind you that Djibouti is a signatory to the Lomé Convention which stipulates in Article 5 that aid for development is subject to respect for human rights. Nowadays, aid should also very definitely be subject to respect for freedom of thought and expression, fair trials, access for detainees to basic medical care and the requirement to return refugees and displaced persons to their region of origin. The Council and the Commission must make every effort to ensure that Djibouti respects the conventions which it has signed. A peaceful political solution must be found as quickly as possible. Finally, it is essential that our President forwards this motion for a resolution to the Council, the Commission and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly. This century started with the Great War and ended with terrifying images of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I firmly hope that we will now be intransigent towards all these daily attacks on human rights, for it is these small acts of cowardice which lead to genocide.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that the debate does not concern either the Commission’s final objectives or its principles in relation to this proposal, but rather the possible unwanted consequences which may result from the application of the future regulation of the sector. Therefore, given the removal of the localisation clause, I would ask you, Commissioner, whether you think there should be a transitional period for small distribution companies, bearing in mind the investments made or under way in this sector, which have a great influence on the level of employment.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets and the Commissioner. As we have already stated, the Group of the Liberal Democrat and Reform Party is fairly satisfied with this budget, which would appear to be rigorous and transparent throughout. This is part of our tradition. I would, however, immediately add that, in my view, it is also an excessively technical budget with only a very limited political dimension. We can accept the basic lines, particularly those relating to reform and enlargement, of course, which I feel is the greatest challenge facing us. However, precisely because it is a challenge, we must take more decisive, political action, action which is, above all, more visible to all the European citizens. I too, like the Committee Chairman, who spoke just now, feel that it is imperative that the procedure is reformed. The technical elements of the procedure need to be revised, it needs to be simplified and, in particular, its cultural and political dimensions need to be developed, with the Council’s powers defined in such a way that they are maximised, not reduced, to achieve a more effective, more focused and, above all, more topical debate. There needs to be a basic philosophy underlying the European budget, a basic philosophy of shared, not concentrated, administrative responsibility – and I stress, shared: this is extremely important – and Parliament needs to have a greater political role, for it must discharge its mandate as effectively as possible. Parliament, like the Union as a whole, must be a visibly political institution and make political responses. I will focus on just two technical aspects. The first concerns the issue of category 4, which my colleague has already touched on. I would add something further. It may be that we pay little or rather too little attention to the Mediterranean question, it may be that we pay too little attention to the issue of the Middle East. We go so far as to debate reconstruction, Afghanistan and issues concerning very distant countries, but there is a matter nearer to home which we will soon, all too soon, have to address more thoroughly and much more decisively. I will mention one more issue: culture. The funds committed for young people, training and information are utterly inadequate.

Political group: ELDR
Given the seriousness of problems concerning crime, no one can doubt the need for greater cross-border cooperation, networking and mutual recognition in criminal matters. However, I had a certain reservation in supporting the report because at present there is an alarmingly one-sided quality in our approach. Too little attention is given in our debates or in the instruments upon which we vote to vital issues of civil liberty. These concern the rights of persons accused of crimes who are entitled in all our systems to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved. These rights are guaranteed under Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Experience shows, however, that interpretation of the rights in question is variable throughout the Union. Sometimes prosecuting authorities ignore them with apparent impunity. I call for greater and better attention to these points. For example, when are we to see proposals for a EuroBail system? Mutual recognition should facilitate common provision for conditional release pending trial. It is a scandal that in many Member States people awaiting trial may spend many months needlessly in detention prior to trial. This requires the most urgent attention of everyone in this Parliament. – Kessler Report (A5-0091/2001)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal for a regulation on a Community patent gives us the chance to review cooperation, as you have just said, between the European Patent Office and the Community institutions. The patent recently issued to the University of Edinburgh poses the problem of the status of the EPO and how to control it. In the light of what has now been referred to as a mistake, it would appear that Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is inaccurate and ambiguous, especially Articles 5(1) and 5(2). Should the Commission not propose a revision of this directive in order to preclude the possibility of patenting the discovery of a gene or genetic sequence? We must not skimp on this question, especially now that we are introducing a Community patent.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, maybe at long last we will decide that the Medical Services should not be placed in the basement. They would prefer to be on the same floor as the plenary session and maybe we could actually look into that.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too shall, of course, start by expressing my deepest sorrow and solidarity with the families of the victims and with those who survived along with the memory of their terrifying ordeal. Of course, accidents at sea happen, human errors are made; but what is most important, Mr President, is for us to see, when a human error is made, if the right action was taken before and after the error. In other words, in the present case, if the right inspections were carried out and the right certificates issued for the ship, if the life-jackets were in the right places, if the crew was doing its job. There is a whole series of things which need looking at right away, especially if Community legislation was also infringed. In my view, the Greek competition committee has never acted in cases in which it should have acted. Of course, I know it is not a matter for the Commission, because the Commission acts in cases of competition at European Union level, but my question is this: how is it possible for a competition committee appointed by the Minister, a committee already in place, to have done nothing and to gradually have allowed a shipping monopoly to emerge? And, as we know, monopolies, be they private or state monopolies, are a bad thing. In the present case they are bad for both freight and passenger shipping. It seems to me that the factor which needs to be quantified here as the result of this tragic incident, is what needs to be done at European Union level, because the bigger picture is the safety of shipping in the European Union. I should like to say, as far as the resolution is concerned, because there are a number of amendments, that my amendment on shipping registers is covered in the text, it is already there. As far as my amendment on working conditions is concerned, there is a directive on this and the wording of the amendment is less satisfactory than the text. And finally, the visit by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism is not, I think, the answer to our prayers; it is up to the European Commission to investigate and ascertain if a Community directive has been infringed, to hurry up with the case law which we want to see in order to make shipping safer and, finally, to do whatever needs to be done and, as I said, to investigate the matter of this famous competition committee. That is what we are waiting to hear from the European Commission.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, yesterday we decided – and this is also recorded in the Minutes – to hold a debate on Thursday on developments in the Middle East. However, we did not set a deadline for tabling motions for resolutions. I would request that we set such a deadline, both for the actual motions – this could be today at 6 p.m. – and for amendments, where we should try to set the deadline for as late as possible tomorrow, so that we can take into account any results from the meeting between Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat tomorrow in Paris. I would ask that we set this deadline and that it be as late as possible.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, when we talk of Belarus, we are talking about more than just the situation in an albeit important country. We are talking about the future of the whole of Eastern Europe. The Pope was recently in Ukraine and voices were raised both for and against him. Not between denominations, however, as everyone would have us believe, because pro-Europeans of all denominations welcomed his visit. It was the anti-Europeans who criticised him. The Russian patriarch Alexei travelled to Belarus, not to criticise the repression of human rights and religious freedom there, but to campaign – with the support of the state – for the restoration of the single state of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. This shows that we are talking about an important political force here, which is why it is important to support the freedom of the people of Belarus and ensure that democracy and the rule of law are established there. Now that Milosevic has been toppled, the last real Communist dictatorship in Europe is the regime in Belarus. It is most important to ensure, and here my support goes above all to Mrs Schroedter, who has done a great deal of work here, that prisoners of conscience are released, that political prisoners are released, that the opposition is at last given a fair chance and that free elections can at last be held in Belarus, so that this country can return to where it has belonged since the beginning of its history, namely in the community of Europeans. (Applause) Situation of refugees from Burundi in Tanzania

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, how does the Commissioner rate the talks that began yesterday between the United States and Latin America? Will they strengthen or weaken the Community objectives referred to in Mrs Kinnock’s question, and what is the EU’s response to the US initiative?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, may I start by declaring an interest in this debate: I am a passionate non-smoker and I wish to share my passion with other Members of the House. But I am also passionate about something else, that is, deregulation in the field of employment and the opportunity for Member States to become increasingly competitive in the global market place. The idea that we should ban not only the marketing of certain types of cigarette and tobacco products, but also their manufacture, in other words, that we ban the possibility to export, is wrong in principle and absurd in practice, given that those markets exist and flourish elsewhere. I should like to quote two brief articles from today's Financial Times for those who have not seen them. One is in the letters page and is headed 'Tobacco proposal would be a slap in the face for workers'. One paragraph says that if exports are banned, it will deeply affect our competitiveness in world export markets and may cost hundreds of jobs in Germany alone, maybe even cause the regional closure of plants. That is a comment from one of the leading trade unions in Germany. On the facing page is an article written jointly by the prime ministers of the UK and Spain, not about the tobacco directive but about market liberalisation, which says: 'It is so important to avoid the sort of heavy-handed regulation that could drive investment and jobs out of Europe'. That, Mr President, is what we are in danger of doing – we are not just stopping exports of cigarettes we are actually promoting the export of jobs. We have an opportunity today to send two signals – first, that we care very much about health, but also that we care very much about jobs, employment and deregulation. The final point I would make is a little plea to the Commissioner. We have had this conversation before, but when we vote today on the labels, can we please have a larger-scale version as posters and spread them throughout the institutions so that we are not just talking to others but also addressing ourselves. If his support cannot be strong, it can at least be mild!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am grateful to my group for being willing to allow me extra time. I would very much like to thank the Commissioner for his comments on the legal basis. For brevity’s sake, I would like to echo what Mr Medina Ortega and Mr Lund had to say on the matter. I do have two additional comments to make. The first concerns Article 11. The reports produced by this committee are crucial in terms of future policy. I am also delighted that this Commissioner is responsible for it. I do have my concerns as to whether the Commission has the capacity to work on this report. I am hoping the Commissioner might reassure us that an increase in the level of staff support within the Commission is on the cards. Finally, Mr President, major alterations must be made to the Council’s common position. It is important in terms of the legal basis, more far-reaching harmonisation of the market, better consumer protection and so on. Each of these elements in isolation probably lacks sufficient support here in Parliament for a qualified majority to be achieved. But as a package, it should lead to better balanced and more results-orientated legislation. There was also a readiness to compromise within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I have in mind Mrs Martens and Mr Sacconi and our cooperation with them. I therefore urge you to support this compromise package.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I agree with the Commission’s proposal and Mrs Napoletano’s report. As I understand it, it is a question of recognising that enlargement is not, cannot be and will not be the Union’s only instrument for structuring Europe and the Euro-Mediterranean region. That is the issue. Enlargement will have a limit. Twelve new countries are going to join; we also have Turkey and others will join in the future. Once that limit has been reached, we must not be able to say that we lack the political, economic, security, cultural or human instruments to structure Europe. In other words, we are giving shape to a more extensive architecture which complements the instrument of enlargement and which also requires the deepening which the Constitution we are currently dealing with represents. If we do not create these new policies of good neighbourly relations, we would be falling short and, at the end of the day, we are taking up proposals made by people with a profound knowledge of the European situation, whom I naturally support.

Political group: PSE