GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we know that terrorism is a field which requires international cooperation and, since I come from a country that has suffered greatly from terrorism, I also know that cooperation in combating terrorism and any action which is taken must show full respect for the system of society which the terrorists want to eliminate. That is what we are trying to defend, not the work of the terrorists. It is absurd to express that suspicion. That is not the problem. The problem, Mr President, is that Parliament has been facing an intolerable situation with regard to the decisions the Commission has been taking in this field. First it announced a type of agreement on which we could express no opinion, then it told us that there would be an international agreement and it turns out that this international agreement is being reached without the obligation to consult Parliament. It should be no surprise that we are asking for the same prerogatives for this House as are enjoyed by the United States Congress in this field. We in plenary and in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market have decided to consult the Court of Justice on the international agreement because we have doubts about the form and the content of what the Commission has done. Unlike Mr Hernández Mollar, I do not believe that a Spanish citizen prefers to face a situation in which they have no defence when they are not allowed to enter the United States because they are under an unfounded suspicion, of terrorism for example. In such circumstances, they will have nowhere to turn to in such a serious situation which may threaten their job, for example. I do not believe they will be less protected without the system. I do not believe that is the case. What we are asking the Commission is that it ensure that the rules are respected. Finally, Mr President, I would like to ask a question. Mr Patten has said in passing that the United States already received the information it wanted. Can you tell me from whom it receives it and, if it knew, what the Commission has done to prevent it?

Political group: PSE
I wholeheartedly support this report by my Socialist colleague to tighten the Council's common position on exposing workers to noise. No workers should be exposed to such high levels of noise that they are unable to have a conversation: you only get one pair of ears and to protect them is vital. Moreover, it is better that measures to combat noise pollution and harm are preventative rather than curative and that the onus is placed on collective rather than individual responsibility in this domain. So that this directive is as effective as possible, we should work with existing tools and avoid duplication. Therefore, the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work should be used to its maximum capacity. This will facilitate and promote the exchange of best practice in terms of acceptable noise levels. Moreover, it is logical that this directive must be far-reaching to include those employers and employees who are self-employed, since these make up a significant share of today's workforce. - Report Müller (A5-0044/2002)

Political group: PSE
Mrs Durant, Commissioner Busquin, let us not disguise our pleasure at once again hearing the sound of music on the streets of the Afghan capital and a woman's voice broadcasting on Radio Kabul. It does us all good to read the sense of liberation on the faces of the Afghans and the rout of some of the most obscurantist and cruel oppressors the world has seen. Let us however, without further ado, take a good look at all the aspects of the situation today, to make sure that our hopes are not soon overshadowed by a new nightmare. Firstly, the fighting is, alas, not yet at an end. The Taliban have regrouped in southern Afghanistan and near the border with Pakistan, where they will go to any lengths to try to save, at whatever price, the remnants of their power and capacity to inflict harm. It would be a disaster if they managed to gain support for their deadly cause from Pashtun groupings, who might feel rejected by the new leaders of Afghanistan. As for the various rival factions that make up the Northern Alliance, we must beware of idealising them. The way women are treated in some of the provinces under its control gives real cause for concern. Furthermore, its past conduct, only five years ago, and the disturbing information we have received from Mazar-i-Sharif unfortunately suggest that there is a risk that sooner or later they will embark on a bloody settling of scores in the reconquered territories. Experience shows that what were once effective aids to military action can turn into serious obstacles to a political solution. From the outset, the political issue has been the determining factor. Secondly, we must look at the distress of the Afghan people, exhausted by five years of terror, months of drought and misery, followed by five weeks of intensive bombing. The UN estimates that seven and a half million people are at risk of famine in this devastated country. In fact, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Special Representative, has repeatedly called for a rapid end to the war for this very reason. What the country does need, however, is emergency aid and development aid on a large scale. For let us not forget that international opinion was mobilised specifically in order to neutralise the terrorist networks, to cut off the sources, mainly financial, that feed them and also to destroy the social and political breeding ground on which they thrive. To date, we have certainly not achieved this just and ambitious aim and any failure to find a political solution to the Afghan problem would only take us further from attaining it. This explains the role that an international player such as the European Union, and particularly the UN, must fulfil through its Member States, as well as within the framework of our relations with the American leaders and with the countries of the region. This will enable a political solution to be found that comes from all sectors of Afghan society and from Afghanis who, until now have been the chief victims of the Taliban, must now be among the agents of change. It is high time this martyred population was offered stability, dignity and peace.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We are against reproductive cloning. We are indignant, however, that the European Parliament wishes to use certain phrases that appear to protect the individual or condemn profit to prohibit in practice, once again, therapeutic cloning, and, more generally, medical research on human cells and tissues. This quite rightly shocks and disgusts many researchers throughout Europe, who might be forbidden to continue with their work and thereby provide scientific help for victims of serious diseases that cannot yet be cured. Preventing research in this field means prohibiting in advance, in the name of reactionary ideas, everything that could in future help to treat or even cure these diseases. Out of solidarity for researchers and sufferers of these diseases, we therefore voted against this report and against all the amendments, many of them worded in an equivocatory fashion, which aim to make the situation worse.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The right of women to make their own decisions over their bodies is a fundamental right which must not be undermined. Therefore, I cannot support Amendments Nos 2 and 5 and naturally I cannot support the amendments which undermine this right.

Political group: PSE
Agricultural subsidies make up a huge proportion of the European budget. This is a fact. For 20 years, I have been hearing that this proportion should be reduced, but this is an extremely slow process. As an MEP, it fills me with great sadness and I am extremely disappointed about the fact that Parliament still has no grip on the situation. When Mr Casaca then tries – at least based on the authority which we clearly have, which is a budgetary authority – to gain an overview of the whole subsidy scheme, we do not exactly receive satisfactory feedback from you. It appears that you, as Commissioner, allow yourself to be fobbed off with what is being whispered into your ear by the bureaucrats who have accompanied you for so many years and who have for so long denied Parliament any direct input. After all, we want to gain a grip on agricultural policy, the export subsidies, and the way in which these subsidies are distributed. We would like to see an end to the exploitation of the developing countries. I fully concur with what Mr Bösch and Mrs Morgan said on this subject. When I was in Johannesburg, I was ashamed when I saw how, with our subsidies, we sound the death knell for a number of countries that have few resources to survive. There are a few countries that only have sugar to export, and we have managed to hold on to these wretched subsidies that we grant to our sugar barons thanks to our Member States. Parliament has decided in the Committee on Development and Cooperation that this should stop. However, an amendment has crept in surreptitiously, upon which the plenary has yet again voted to maintain the agricultural subsidies for sugar. There are innumerable examples quoted here. As democratic representatives of our citizens, we would like a grip on these subsidies. Similarly, I fail to obtain an explanation for the way in which Europe manages to distribute unnecessary and harmful subsidies, while we are actually committed to solidarity with the developing world. I recently visited Botswana, where, apart from diamonds, they only have a few cattle to export. We concluded an agreement in this respect. There are so many African countries that wish to trade fairly with us, yet we still fail to create the opportunities for this. Finally, I should like to point out that with regard to agricultural subsidies, export subsidies for live animals too are a disgrace and unacceptable to our public opinion. I am appalled to find out that you intend to increase these. Surely that is impossible. I should therefore like to concur with our fellow MEPs in their plea. I myself was a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control for a while, and I have great respect for my fellow MEPs and for their reports. I always read the reports with great interest, but I would finally like to see some change. In the final analysis, we are not here to keep the show on the road; we are here to create justice. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, enlargement will not be achieved in a controlled and organised way in accordance with the timetable the Commission is proposing. The talks do not need to reach a conclusion at the end of 2002 simply for the sake of political ambition, if the problems are not solved by then. We must keep political urgency at bay. The biggest problem is the different level of development of the countries. The best illustration of that is the reunification of Germany. In Germany the economic, social and cultural differences have not been as great as those among the present Member States and many of the applicant countries but the process has nonetheless come to cost EUR 600 billion. Where will we find the money for still much greater sums, to reduce the much greater differences in levels of development? Commissioner Verheugen’s idea of a referendum on enlargement was heavily criticised, and the reason is obvious: those who have to pay cannot be let to decide on the matter. I propose that the model for enlargement be the same that was implemented in connection with the previous round of enlargement. The applicant countries first should join the European Economic Area, where they can harmonise their economies with that of the EU, without political commitments or coercion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I should like to compliment the Commission on having managed to achieve a new agricultural agreement that offers plenty of scope for a new WTO Agreement. Not one single product is still receiving direct support now and, insofar as import tariffs still apply in the European Union, production is restricted and an important proportion of the world market has been surrendered. Accordingly, the assigning of quotas in the EU's dairy sector has meant that we have relinquished five percent of our share in world trade. Unfortunately, I have to say that this five percent has not been utilised in any way by developing countries. In addition, the European Union has concluded a trade agreement with the world's 48 poorest countries, and we provide free market access to many former colonies and to the Balkan countries. If we consider that we are on the eve of an enormous enlargement of the Union, we have to establish that the European Union has given free trade a huge shot in the arm. We already import more agricultural products from the developing world than the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand put together. This means that the European Union has adopted an open stance and has, in this respect, most definitely contributed to a new world trade agreement. It would, therefore, not surprise me if certain groupings, including in this Parliament, were to claim that this agreement does not go far enough. We have gone further than any other trading bloc; we offer more market access than any other trading bloc. This means that it is precisely this strong position that will weaken us if we do not take a united stand. By undermining the joint European position, there will be even less consideration in the world for non-trade affairs, such as animal welfare, food safety, the environment, but also for social aspects. This is precisely the quality that Europe can add to a new world trade agreement. I would once again like to congratulate the European Commission, particularly Commissioner Lamy and his colleague, Mr Fischler. I hope that this Parliament will be united behind the Commission. Indeed, on the basis of the present agreements on agricultural policy reform, we are in a strong position in new negotiations, and we have a great deal to offer to the world in terms of social justice, but also in relation to non-trade matters.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, transport issues have to do with public health, among other things. Transport users have accidents, suffer the stress of gridlock and, as local residents, are exposed to traffic noise and exhaust fumes and many other hazards, not only in urban but also in rural areas. In some cases, they affect an entire Member State, as we are witnessing in Austria, my own country, where major problems are caused by transit traffic. It is sensible, therefore – indeed, it is essential – to analyse and evaluate the impact of transport on public health and draw appropriate conclusions. Against this background, we owe a debt of gratitude to the rapporteur, Mrs Caroline Lucas, for this own-initiative report. We must also thank her for her willingness to work with all the groups – particularly the Group of the – in seeking sensible compromise solutions. The text which I assume we will adopt by a fairly large majority tomorrow is both ambitious and modest, and therefore deserves to be taken seriously. We want the Commission to carry out professional impact assessments and to use the scientific data as a basis for appropriate legislative initiatives wherever – but only if – these initiatives are necessary. If, indeed, it proves possible to implement some points by the end of 2003, which is one of the proposals set forth in the oral amendment by Mrs Petersen, we should welcome this step. We will be delighted to give it our support. We look forward with interest to the work of the Commission and our Vice-President, Mrs de Palacio.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy proposed a number of amendments to the budget. One main concern was with regard to the resources allocated to the various agencies and institutions that carry out statutory duties on our behalf or provide data and statistical information. We cannot demand that, for example, the European Environment Agency provide environmental indicators to enable us to link common agricultural policy reforms to the achievement of environmental goals if their budget is not adequate. Last year Parliament voted to allocate resources to help address the continuing health problems in the Republic of Belarus as a direct result of the Chernobyl incident of April 1986. Radiation affects 23% of the territory of Belarus. In the Gomel Oblast, which is contaminated, there are 2 million people, including 500 00 children. Rates of sickness have increased dramatically. For example, the number of children who suffer from thyroid cancer has increased fivefold. Most of the children were not even born at the time of the incident. In July I visited Belarus. I visited hospitals where they were trying to treat the casualties of the problem. I saw equipment that was 20 years out of date – radiotherapy equipment that was Soviet built and was broken down, with spares unavailable. Even if spares were available the government could not afford to repair them. They do not have access to the iridium sources needed for this equipment to work. So what have been the priorities of the European Union in the last 12 months in terms of spending? We have spent EUR 180 million on the ridiculous pilgrimage to Strasbourg; we have wasted EUR 60 million on the Committee of the Regions – a talking shop that nobody listens to; EUR 5 million have been nicked by corrupt officials in Eurostat. How much have we spent solving the health problems in Belarus? Not one penny. We are told that the Commission intends to commission a study. That is not good enough. We need to address the problems in a country that is going to be on our borders in July next year.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, since the Vice-President of the Commission has declined to say anything about the questions relating to the currency and to the KLA, may I proceed on the assumption that the European Union has no opinion on these issues?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the provisions which will be put to the vote on Thursday will form the principal CFP regulation for the next ten years and will represent the arrangements for fishing subsidies and the creation of an emergency fund designed to resolve the problem of overcapacity of the Union’s fleets. It is up to the Member States to decide on their plan of action during this time. I would like to make a plea for small-scale fishing, which affects the most jobs and enables many families of traditional fishermen to survive. Until now, it has primarily been industrial fishing which has been increasingly encouraged, and I thank Commissioner Fischler for the proposals that he made in his presentation on the general policy in this area. First of all, when FIFG subsidies are used to build increasingly large and increasingly powerful boats, the Member States, of course, encourage a greater and less selective fishing, which has a detrimental effect on small tradesmen, who are concerned with preserving efficient boats that are kept in good condition and which therefore provide good levels of safety without damaging the marine environment. We would like more money to be granted to businesses, particularly from the Structural Funds. This money must also be used to buy better equipment, not to destroy boats. We should also, for example, give small, less powerful boats access to reserved areas to be used as their main resource. The Member States could implement similar measures to encourage access to markets in which small-scale fishermen, whose activities are less well structured than large-scale fishermen, have less influence in the area of management. For example, aid can be given to fisheries and to fish auctions. As regards the representation of fishermen in Commission advisory councils, we must encourage small businesses. We should increase the representation of traditional fishermen, particularly within regional fishing committees, in which professional associations can express their views. The industrial tribunals in the Mediterranean are a good example of this. They could thus defend their interests more forcefully. Lastly, it is always the large-scale fishermen who can go further, to Africa, for example to Senegal where species are fished to a greater degree, or to other countries whose fisheries resources are essential for the local economy. They contribute to the depletion of stocks, which is harmful for both local fishermen and fishermen all over the world. These are some proposals, therefore, that we can make to encourage small-scale fishing.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I should like to make two brief points which may well be relevant should this go to conciliation, as I suspect it will. The first is the impact of this directive on the existing specialist toxic waste incineration industry. These incinerators have to adhere to higher standards than the coincineration plants. My concern is that the high calorific value waste will be cherry-picked for coincineration and this in turn will push up the cost of the specialist toxic waste incinerators which will mean that they will have to actually buy in fuel in many instances to achieve the high temperatures which are required to destroy things like dioxin. We need the specialist toxic waste incinerators. There are only three at the moment in the United Kingdom. If we had fewer of these plants, it would mean that hazardous waste might well have to be transported for large distances, which is not acceptable for both political and practical environment reasons, and it would also push up the cost of incinerating this toxic waste. The second point I would make is to underline the point made by Dr Jackson. I come from a region in the United Kingdom with the highest density of pigs. Now traditionally fallen stock has been disposed of by burial on the farm, but with these very large units this is just not a practical way of disposal, so many of the units have installed their own incinerators – small incinerators using less than 50 kg per hour. If these incinerators are not used, people may well have to go back to burial. I think this mix-up has been due to a misunderstanding between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture in Britain, who thought there were only sixty incinerators of this type when in fact there are several thousand. This problem also applies to hunt kennels which feed fallen stock, and dispose of offal and – bizarrely – to pet crematoria, although I understand that human crematoria are not covered as dead people are not classified as waste. In conciliation could I ask you to make allowance for these farmers who have invested in cleaning up the environment by installing incinerators, and for whom the cost would be excessive should they not be able to continue.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report is good in many respects. For example, it is important to point out that a security strategy for the EU is being prepared within the framework of the UN system. The importance of international law is emphasised in quite a few places. It is made clear that, in order to be able to combat the new threats and security risks faced by Europe, there must be political strategies for combating poverty and for climate protection, the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, there are things in the report that we cannot accept. We wish to retain the principle of unanimous decision-making in foreign and security policy, and we flatly reject a common defence of the territory of Europe. Moreover, we do not want to see an increase in military resources or the Community’s being given its own defence budget. We are not, therefore, able to vote in favour of the report.

Political group: PSE