GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, scarcely a day goes by without the Middle East being drawn further into the downward spiral of terrorism and violence. It is therefore quite right to call for peace and dignity in the Middle East. It must apply to everyone equally – Israelis and Palestinians alike. The time has undoubtedly come to seek a way out of the hopelessness of the situation. However, the signs are not very encouraging. The Oslo process has run its course, and the Quartet’s Road Map is at risk of becoming bogged down in the no-man’s-land of hatred and mistrust as well. What we are witnessing every day is an obviously divided Palestinian leadership which is either unable or unwilling to tackle terrorism effectively – a leadership which does not condemn the suicide bombings for the murderous attacks that they really are. On the other side, we have military reactions and over-reactions which claim the lives of the innocent and the guilty alike, but which contribute nothing to resolving the problem. The security fence is an expression of both power and powerlessness, and under no circumstances should it pre-empt the drawing of a final border. Naturally, there are peace plans, such as the Geneva Accord and other initiatives, which we in Parliament welcome. They have just one disadvantage: they appear, at least so far, to be a minority programme. The political goal of two states – Israeli and Palestinian – co-existing peacefully must continue to be pursued by all political and diplomatic means. There must be no retrograde step towards an international mandate for Palestine, and nor must there be any suspension of the Association Council, which is and must remain an important bridge for dialogue. Although Mr Menéndez del Valle’s report has been substantially improved by the motions proposed by my group, I will recommend to my delegation that it abstain from voting.

Political group: PPE-DE
I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts to standardise the meaning of and define the penalties for drug trafficking. Essentially, this report represents a balanced, far-reaching, sensible and tough approach to a perennial problem which besets all Member States of the EU. For too long, the terms and conditions of what constitutes a drug trafficking offence have been too woolly, thereby creating serious pockets of crime in some parts of the world and within the EU. An additional welcome measure is the standardisation of penalties, with prison sentences with a maximum term of no less than five years. Once this law becomes enforceable, it should act as a real deterrent. Fines should only be used as an additional measure to prison sentences since otherwise they could lead to the belief that you can somehow pay your way out of a criminal offence. Lastly, I welcome the nuanced approach that the report takes vis-à-vis mitigating circumstances. For example, minors and those who have committed offences under physical duress, should clearly not be subject to the same penalties as all offenders. Report Ludford (A5-0436/2001)

Political group: PSE
The European Women’s Lobby represents over 3,000 different women’s organisations across the EU. It has represented the interests of women with competence and professionalism. The group has provided invaluable information and support, particularly on the impact of European programmes on women’s lives. We have also been able, as individuals, to access information, evidence and analysis when necessary. The material produced by the lobby is high quality, as are the forums, seminars and conferences which they organise. A clear example of this was a day conference involving women from all over the EU which was held in Cardiff to coincide with the summit during the UK presidency. It is clearly inadvisable to distribute the funds between a variety of organisations which would, by definition, fail to identify the core objectives in terms of giving the service which EWL can so uniquely provide. The agenda pursued by EWL is clear and incontrovertible – to promote the concerns, priorities and interests of women. The accusations which have been made, that the EWL is a “single issue” body, is simply not true when it represents such large numbers of women through its 3000 member organisations.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as the rapporteur has already said, this is not the first time that tobacco has been on the agenda. We have discussed it on a number of occasions. It is a thorny problem because various conflicting interests are at issue, especially those of health and of industry. These in turn involve largely small and medium-sized businesses, which form the heart of the economy. Jobs are also at stake. It is good that the Commission should have come up with a new directive and should have taken the initiative in the health field of doing everything possible to combat the consequences of smoking, for example by reducing nicotine content, banning harmful substances, by warnings and better labelling, by highlighting the danger of passive smoking and through product information. In the field of the harmonisation of the internal market, it wants to do its utmost to combat different starting positions and to remove trading obstacles, by, for example, stating nicotine content, and by further harmonising policy on warnings and product information. I hope that we can really achieve reciprocal recognition of testing methods. Exports to third countries are a sore point. Personally I take the view that what we regard as inadmissibly harmful to the inhabitants of the EU should not be exported to other countries, even if they have no legislation in that field. I deplore the fact that this may have adverse consequences for employment in certain countries. I would like to observe, however, that in my view more jobs have been lost through restructuring or the closing of companies by the industry itself than from political regulation. For that reason I am for the time being reasonably optimistic. I also believe that we have reached a reasonable compromise on transition deadlines. As regards the legal basis, I would point out that this directive builds on three existing directives. I therefore assume that we have a good legal foundation, having listened to, among others, the legal advisers of Parliament, the Commission and the Council. In conclusion two more general observations. The first is on young people and smoking. I would welcome it if the Member States could strengthen their efforts to advise young people against starting smoking, for example through pricing policy or, for example, by making points of sale unattractive and inaccessible or by prohibiting the free distribution of cigarettes on café terraces or near schools. That is not universal. A second observation concerns the subsidies on tobacco. On the one hand we have this directive aimed at discouraging smoking which points out the health dangers, but at the same time Europe continues to give huge subsidies for tobacco growing. It is my view that these should be gradually phased out. Finally, I should like to compliment the rapporteur on the end result and thank him for the successful cooperation.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Europe and the European Parliament are standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States at this dark time in human history, which is certainly the darkest moment since the end of the Second World War. We are standing by the United States not least because the victims of the various attacks include a large number of Europeans, many of them Italians. It was not just the symbols of the economic and collective freedom of the West that were the targets on 11 September: we have all been affected. Europe must take the lead in the new political phase which has opened after the recent tragic events. Starting with Parliament, our institutions must play a prominent role in the coming weeks and months. Together with all the countries of the world, the Union will be summoned to the front line, and the decisions we are called upon to make will have to focus on certain major questions including, most importantly, identifying those responsible. This is vital if the United States and the allies who decide to support it are to be able to react against terrorism in the way that they must, but the aim of the action taken must be to strike those responsible for the atrocities in New York and Washington. If we are to win this war against terrorism, Commissioner, we need a thorough reinvigoration of the secret services sector. In order to do this, in addition to enhancing Europol, which we advocate, it appears increasingly necessary to create a sort of supranational intelligence service. This was discussed at the Summit between the Italian and British prime ministers, a project seeking to create an organisation which can expose and help combat terrorism in all its tentacular ramifications. The strategy and international action taken must, of necessity, include all the Arab countries. It must be clear that the battle currently being played out is not between the West and Islam: it is between the whole world and the lunacy of terrorism. That is why we attach great importance to Russia and China’s declarations and see the positions of Yasser Arafat and the Israeli government in taking certain decisions which facilitate encouraging steps towards peace in the Middle East as positive. A military and intelligence response must, in any case, be accompanied by an incisive Union policy in the areas where there is worst crisis: an action intended to extinguish the flames of desperation and intolerance. The possibility of financial speculation initiated by terrorists on stock markets throughout the world and the crisis experienced by many airlines which will lead to thousands of job cuts demand a raft of measures from the international community to protect the economy as well. Mr President, Europe and all its institutions are called to undergo a great test. However, we are all convinced that people will decide en masse for what is right and the values of freedom, democracy and tolerance which we all now uphold will ultimately prevail; we are sure that the European Parliament, the institution which represents the people of Europe, will, from Friday onwards, certainly do its part.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me take a look at the economic and competitive aspects of public tendering from the point of view of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Mr Zappalà has just referred to the fact that, according to the Commission's estimate at any rate, 14% to 15% of the EU's GDP is accounted for by building and supply contracts and contracts to provide services, all granted by the State or by enterprises whose function is to provide services for the general public. Looked at in terms of actual figures, 15% of the EU's GDP of about EUR 900 billion per annum amounts to EUR 125 to EUR 130 billion, not a small sum by any means. In this very area of public contracting, though, the internal market has not yet prevailed to any particular degree. There is a need for change to be brought about here. The award of contracts across frontiers is still the exception. Regulations are complex, muddled, rigid, cumbersome and bureaucratic, and the integration of social concerns and environmental issues into procurement practice has not yet been clarified either. Those, at any rate, are the challenges Parliament itself enumerated in its debates on the Green Paper and the communication from the Commission in 1996 and 1998. It is for that reason that we must now focus on the economic objectives and those related to competition policy. Our aim is also to help bring the Internal Market to fruition in this area. There is a need for clear, transparent rules that do not discriminate against anyone tendering for these contracts. On the other hand, though, there must also be the guarantee that nobody tendering for a contract can gain unjustifiable advantages for himself. It must therefore be made clear that standards must be adhered to as laid down by the law on labour, pricing and the environment. It is for that reason that Mr Zappalà is not quite correct when he argues in his final remarks that the economic aspects should be separated from the others. You cannot, of course, evade the other standards in order to gain an economic advantage. That is one of the ground rules that we all share, and it must also be obeyed.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, neither BSE nor foot-and-mouth are British diseases; they are a European problem. With millions of animals being slaughtered and farms being crippled or wiped out, this is hardly the time for party political argument. I well remember how Labour let fly at the Conservative government during the BSE crisis and now there is the temptation for the Conservatives to let fly at the Labour government, but even if governments are guilty of omission, what you are doing here is not exactly constructive. We have submitted a regulation on feeding meat and bonemeal in certain cases – we are talking animal waste here. Had we had it at the time, there would have been no BSE problem. The same applies to foot-and-mouth. The Commission needs to change its strategy. Holland may have ring vaccinated successfully, but it was only by going against the mood in the EU and the Commission. I do not want you to help, I want you to do something so that we end up with a different strategy which we can then also secure through our trade policy. We must move away from this insane strategy of ‘foot-and-mouth free’ or ‘disease free’ and discuss this with our trading partners. We need a regulation on feeding or destroying leftovers. What the Council has done now, that is, just banning, is no help at all. This rubbish has to go somewhere and we cannot dump it in landfills because then the problem of improper processing will keep recurring.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you can imagine, I followed the debates yesterday very attentively and the unanimous praise of the content and form of this report slightly worried me, as it is impossible, whatever the qualities of any compromise, to please everyone. Today, as a last resort, it has been proposed that we reject the implementation of these two texts for two reasons that were put forward yesterday in the debates. The first is that the European Union has not been recompensed for its efforts and that we certainly cannot hope for anything from the Turkish Government on account of the fact that since the implementation of the Customs Union agreements, no real progress has been made, according to some of our colleagues. I will say to this House that in this agreement on Customs Union, it is the European Union that has been, by a long chalk, the beneficiary of the commitments entered into, since the balance of trade between the European Union and Turkey has doubled in favour of the European Union since the implementation of these agreements. The second reason is the confirmation of the fact that Mr Öçalan has been condemned to death by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeal and the fact that some of our colleagues now fear for Mr Öçalan’s life. I would comment that there has been a de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Turkey for fifteen years and that the aim of the report we are voting on is precisely to urge the Turkish Government to change this de facto moratorium into a de jure moratorium and that, in any case, I wonder what our colleagues’ reaction would be if, in their own country of origin, there was, as they desire, interference by the political power in the judiciary, since Mr Öçalan’s case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So, for all these reasons, I would say that if you want to hang your dog you give him a bad name first, and I would therefore ask the House not to take account of this request for a referral.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I support the proposal by my friend, the very honourable member, Baroness Ludford, with pleasure. Let us proceed with the vote.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, thank you for your answer, which I find partially satisfactory as I am well aware of your personal interest in the matter and of the initiatives you have undertaken to combat prostitution rings. However, we must admit that we have not been very successful so far, since the number of rings has increased and we have recently received reports of abuse, particularly of Albanian and Kosovar women. Of course, this issue is bound up with the economic, social and political conditions which prevail in the Balkans and which have resulted in the poverty and overexploitation of vulnerable sections of the population, such as women. However, Commissioner, we must also admit that the intervention of the EU’s institutions has been both inadequate and ineffective. Are you aware, Commissioner, that concentration camps still exist where women are raped before being forced into prostitution? European women are particularly concerned as to whether there is any political will to dismantle these prostitution rings, whether there is any police or judicial cooperation and whether any victim support measures are in place.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, my thanks first to you for your flexibility and my thanks to the Commissioner for his detailed reply. However, when he talks of some sort of strategy to deal with any slowdown in GDP, what does he see as the main ingredients of such a strategy? And how should any new factor, by which I mean the impact of a possible war with Iraq on GDP, be taken into consideration?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the concept of the Northern Dimension must be understood in a broad sense. It embraces both the Union’s external relations and its internal policies. In external relations it encompasses the Baltic Sea and Barents Sea areas and the whole of the Arctic region. With the enlargement of the European Union the importance of cross-border cooperation will increase, as the border we share with Russia will lengthen and as we will be acquiring new neighbours. Cross-border cooperation is first and foremost bilateral action between the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and Russia and our other neighbours, on the other hand. Then again, we also have two viable multilateral forums, the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Bilateral and multilateral action are both restricted by a lack of funds. In bilateral cross-border cooperation EU funding is limited to Interreg projects and to a small number of TACIS projects. Barents and Baltic Sea cooperation is not financed by the Union at all. It is being proposed once again in our joint resolution that a special budget heading should be created for the Northern Dimension. In practice this could mean that EU funding for the area of activity covered by the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council would be appreciably increased and it would be channelled at least in part through these Councils. This time we are discussing the Northern Dimension on the basis of a statement by the Commissioner in charge of External Relations. The principles of the Northern Dimension must also be remembered when we discuss the enlarging Union’s regional and agricultural policy and other areas of internal policy that particularly affect the development of the northern regions. The importance of the Northern Dimension will also grow with regard to internal policies, when the Baltic countries and Poland join the Union.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I too would like to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur. There is no doubt that Mr Böge and the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment are now tremendous experts in this field. It is very good that they are continuing to monitor this issue on behalf of Parliament because it is extremely important. Regardless of the many other concerns we may have, BSE has given us a terrible legacy that has to be dealt with and resolved. It is quite clear that the incidence of scrapie in sheep has been a contributing factor to the overall problem. I welcome the legal base being set and the comprehensive way the new rules will, I hope, address this situation. We must ensure that nothing can enter the food chain or the animal compound feed to allow what we have experienced in the past to happen again in the future. No-one would want to see what happened to farmers with BSE happen ever again. We have to bring in the most stringent rules and we have to make them work. It is extremely important both for the producer and the consumer that we restore confidence and the only way we can do it is by rigorously tackling the problem and resolving it. BSE has certainly not gone away. You can see it in different countries. I do not want to point the finger at any particular country, but many countries are now facing similar problems to those we have had in the United Kingdom. It will be there for some time to come. We have to ensure that the whole system of traceability, of following the animal from birth until slaughter and right through the whole food chain, is part of that confidence-building mechanism. If we are not able to achieve that then we will have tremendous trouble in the future. Finally, I have certainly believed for a long time, coming from an agricultural background myself, that if we had fed the animals the proper food and if the animal feedstuffs had been made up of the proper compounds we would never have had BSE in the first place. It was never the responsibility of the farmer, it was the food compounders who caused this problem and we have to ensure that it never happens again.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, I have been in Porto Alegre, the civil alternative to Davos, which was discussed earlier. It would be preferable not to have two opposing fora – one economic and one social, one governmental and one civil – each calling for completely different political orientations for the future. In Porto Alegre, local authorities, members of parliament, trade unions, non-governmental organisations, judges and teachers proposed – perhaps idealistically – that another world is possible, and not just possible, but necessary. In Davos, directors of multinational companies and ministers concluded that the key elements for the new world economic agenda are the real value of companies in view of the volatility of their share values, trade as a fundamental instrument for sustainable development and the principles to govern the activities of the multinationals. In other words, the distance between the citizens and the people with real power is only increasing. During these two minutes, I will just give a couple of examples: in Davos there were references to AIDS, but there was no reference to the need for pharmaceutical laboratories, whose investments in advertising and marketing are double their investments in research, to open up their patents to developing countries. Another example: it is considered that commerce is an important factor in development but there is no reference to reciprocity in the opening up of markets. The protectionism of the rich countries, including the European Union’s agricultural policy, has a negative impact on development. I believe, Commissioner, that Europe must be a model for reducing the distance between each position. The economic order promoted in Davos must be accompanied by a social and political order such as that called for in Porto Alegre. The participation of European parliamentarians in Porto Alegre is a good symptom, but the European Union’s partnership with citizens’ movements must go further. We urge the Community’s institutions to join in with global campaigns on access to water, agriculture, food safety and public services. We also ask the Commission to support the creation of a world fund to combat hunger and poverty.

Political group: PSE