GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Why do 800 million people still have an empty stomach? Because leaders everywhere leave a great deal to be desired. In principle, there is food for everyone. There is no shortage of objectives and good intentions. The fewer results are yielded, the more summit meetings are organised which do nothing but conclude that policy must be intensified. Who is to blame, the rich countries or the poor ones? Both, Mr President. The developed states are hypocritical. Despite fine declarations of intent, they carry on over-subsidising their own agriculture and protecting their own market. The liberalisation of the world market is not obstructed by Europe alone, but also by America and other large agricultural states. Western companies continue to exploit their patent monopolies on techniques and crops, development cooperation focuses too little on agriculture and technological expertise is not passed on. Developing countries also leave a great deal to be desired. Although most people live in rural areas, too little attention is given to food production. Famines can really not only be ascribed to the climate or high toll barriers; endless wars, treating nature in an irresponsible manner, extreme population growth, over-urbanisation, inadequate infrastructure, but also corruption and mismanagement, in particular, stand in the way of sound agriculture. Products are imported in order to feed cities bursting at the seams; there is too little regional trade and a great deal of monoculture. Military expenditure for rulers is at the expense of affordable food for the people. Solemn statements and reiterations of earlier conclusions are not expressions of real political will, but rather attempts at concealing its absence. Hungry people have lost their appetite for them. They are fed up to the back teeth of fine words.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I should like to start by congratulating my fellow committee members, Mr Bösch and Mr Perry, and also Mrs Almeida Garrett, for their reports. Also Mr Söderman for his continued unstinting defence of European citizenship. The approach of these reports is based on the need to create a system of transparency and understanding, so that citizens of the European Union can be confident that when they have a legitimate complaint they have recourse to the Ombudsman or the Committee on Petitions, depending on the nature of their problem. It is important that we clarify for the public the distinct functions of the two institutions and press for more publicity and a more effective information policy for both the Ombudsman's office and Parliament's petition process. I fully support the view that is necessary to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaties of the Union, so as to further enhance the rights of citizens of Europe. To succeed as the most progressive combination of States, we must ensure that our institutions are fully democratic and accountable and that the individual and collective rights of all are guaranteed and defended. I congratulate the Ombudsman in particular for succinctly identifying – perhaps one of the few to have done so at European level – the underlying reason for the failure of the Irish referendum and that is the gulf between rulers and ruled. There is absolutely no doubt in my view that that is the case and it has given rise to all kinds of concerns. The Bösch report quite rightly praises the cooperation between Parliament and the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman's office and the invaluable procedure of referring complaints to the Committee on Petitions where they fall outside his remit. I welcome the Ombudsman's suggestion that there be a much closer working relationship between the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman's office with regard to the legal implications of some of the cases that come before us. The Perry report is another piece of important work and, as the Ombudsman has said, it is appropriate that Mr Perry, the author of the report, is given a role in initiating the whole idea of a code of conduct at European level. It is essential that a common code of conduct applies in all our institutions, so that citizens are not baffled or bamboozled by the response of our institutions to their problems and complaints.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, a job – work – is the most important means of preventing exclusion. The European Union is little able to tackle the question of employment directly. The Luxembourg process, as it is known, with its yearly reports on employment and its approach to best practices and learning by example, is an excellent attempt to reinforce cooperation among Member States and encourage success and transparency. A big step forward will be the subsequent Luxembourg process, which invests in new technology and uses it to put Europe on the path to growth. Action to bolster employment must focus too on where best to obtain added value, in other words, education and training, research, the adoption of new technology as a tool of growth and, in particular, as one of sustainable growth. We shall have equality by attending to the matter of public social services, which also make it possible for women to be fully represented in the labour market.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome this resolution which aims to promote core labour standards. The trend towards greater economic interdependence and globalisation is a reality with which we must all contend. This does not mean, however, that workers' rights and social governance should fall by the way side. Indeed, the call for a more balanced order, whereby social issues are considered on a par with economic concerns, whilst long over due, is most welcome. The call for ratification of the ILO conventions in applicant countries as well as third parties is a desirable concrete means by which to ensure that the ILO is taken seriously. Lastly, I welcome the call for more dialogue and increased issue linkage between the ILO and other international organisations, such as the WTO and the World Bank. These institutions may appear to be mutually exclusive, whereas in fact both 'sides' could learn a lot from one another and work more effectively in unison.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I welcome the remarks of President Prodi with regard to the current political tensions in the world and his emphasis on the role of the United Nations in resolving those tensions. I also wish the current Presidency-in-Office well at the extraordinary summit next Monday. I hope that it can establish a common position for the European Union in the present very fraught situation. I want to put it to the Commission and the Council that one of the most important things we can do at the summit is insist that Member States comply with the agreements they make in the Council. By this I mean both the targets they agree to under the Lisbon Process and the implementation of those targets because there is a clear gap in the implementation process. I should like to re-emphasise a point made by a number of Members. The Lisbon Process is not simply a liberalisation process – important as that is. The whole idea of the Lisbon Process was to have a coordinated and well-balanced social and economic approach to modernising the European social model. If we are to retain the uniqueness of the European Union, then we must ensure that social equity is not sacrificed in pursuit of the goal of liberalisation and competitiveness. That is also essential – not just from the point of view of social justice but also for creating a more productive Union. We have to ensure that those who are engaged in production feel it is worthwhile for them and for their children. Therefore, the crucial role of public services has to be defended. At the summit, the Commission and the Council have to seek to guarantee that services of general interest are enabled to grow and develop and are protected – and I use that word cautiously – from the ravages of the free market. My final point is that we must set targets for youth employment, in particular for disadvantaged youth. They are the long-term unemployed of tomorrow.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, as usual, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by my final explanation of vote to say ‘Bon apétit’ to those Members – who, as you see, are many – who have had the patience to remain in the Chamber to hear why I voted for Mr Lavarra’s report on fisheries. Why should we not say ‘Bon apétit’ and have some exquisite, delicious fish for lunch? The purpose of this report too – and these are the last reports on fish, which is why I have such a desire to have a delicious plate of fried fish on the table before me – is to exploit the fishing activity to obtain the greatest quantity of fish possible, in other words to catch the greatest possible number of fish. Mr Lavarra’s report maintains that this is possible if the fish live in a clean environment. I know that a large number of fish are getting together to form the ‘Fish Green Party’, for fish have the right to live in a clean environment, just as we do. These fish will be so happy to be many and to end up frying in the pan to tickle the taste buds of the Members of the European Parliament, even if with some delay caused by Mr Fatuzzo. Bon apétit!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Moldova’s internal political situation has deteriorated fast since Parliament’s delegation visited the country last autumn. Then it seemed that social and economic reform in Moldova was making headway despite the many difficulties and obstacles. Now the news from Moldova is that the principles of human rights and the rule of law have been violated, the people’s democratic right to stage demonstrations has been disregarded, and, furthermore, restrictions have been placed on the activities of the media. Members of Parliament are particularly worried about the disappearances of Moldova’s opposition leaders, which sparked unrest there. We have reason to fear that there is a connection between these disappearances and the country’s political problems. We obviously hope that everything possible will be done to find the disappeared persons unharmed, and that an independent and thorough study will solve the mystery surrounding these cases. The motion for a resolution quite rightly calls on the Moldovan government to adhere to the rules and procedures of democracy, and give an assurance that it will respect the principles of human rights and the rule of law. The Moldovan Parliament must also revise its decision to abolish the parliamentary inviolability of members of the opposition and desist from any renewed suppression of that inviolability. It also has to be made clear to the ruling party that it cannot abuse the powers it has to disband the opposition. When considering Moldova’s problems we have to remember that the country’s economy has collapsed since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Poverty and sluggish social reform have led to an increase in crime and the growth of the shadow economy. The internal political situation is being aggravated further by the problem of Transnistria. A return to socio-political stability and a regard for human rights and the rule of law will also be vital if the country’s economic problems are to be resolved. I think it is important that the European Parliament clearly states its position to the Moldovan Parliament and government, as well as the party in power there, which is what is being done in this motion for a resolution.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I have checked the documents again and established that we already voted on the issue addressed in Amendment No 28 when we voted on Amendment No 7. For that reason this amendment is redundant. I would imagine that we will be able to discuss the quite specific problem which is the subject of this amendment with the Council at a later stage. (Parliament adopted the legislative resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(1) on the situation in the Middle East (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Joint motion for a resolution(2) on transatlantic relations (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) Joint motion for a resolution(3) on the state of transatlantic dialogue (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0147/2001) by Mr Cercas, on behalf of Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Commission communication on The Future Evolution of Social Protection from a Long-Term Point of View: Safe and Sustainable Pensions (COM(2000) 622 – C5­0011/2001 – 2001/2003(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0114/2001) by Mr Casaca, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control on the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 11/2000 on the support scheme for olive oil, accompanied by the Commission’s replies [C5­0009/2001 – 2001/2001(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0166/2001) by Mrs Buitenweg, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the estimates of revenue and expenditure of the European Parliament for the financial year 2002 (2001/2062(BUD)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) ***

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil Tigers has been going on for thirty years and has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. The negotiations having been suspended in April, the resumption of dialogue at the end of October with the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was a significant step forward on the road to peace. Institutionally speaking, substantial progress had been made towards the resolution of the conflict. The legal coup d’état, however, by the President, Chandrika Kumaratunga, which interrupted the negotiations, was a giant leap backwards. The proclamation of a state of emergency, the concentration of the most important State posts – Ministers for the Interior, Defence and Information – in the hands of the President, the intervention of the army and the suspension of parliamentary activities all show that the situation is getting worse. It could deteriorate rapidly and even result in a resumption of the war and new elections with uncertain results. The President’s accusations against the government and the uncertainty surrounding the ceasefire are very worrying. We support the efforts of the Prime Minister to engage in dialogue. The President must resume contacts with the Prime Minister as soon as possible in order to find a constitutional solution. At the same time, the cooperation must be extended to include all the political leaders and all interest groups. Whatever happens, the immediate end to the state of emergency is essential if the peace process is to be resumed immediately. In this respect, we fully support the Norwegian Government in its role as mediator and hope that it resumes its efforts as soon as possible. The situation is particularly worrying in relation to the issue of human rights. The emergency regime must not lead to an increase in infringements of fundamental freedoms. We are especially concerned about the risk of a fresh upsurge of police and military interventions and, above all, the risk of torture or inhumane treatment. In conclusion, we hope that the state of emergency does not slow down the distribution of the aid pledged at the Donor Conference in May. It is because we know that the peace process cannot move forward until internal relations are eased that we are calling for an end to the emergency regime as soon as possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, there are a lot of very sensitive matters that we are dealing with in this report. It seems to me that the vote that we took on Amendment No 16 is entirely invalid. (Mixed reactions) Many Members of this House asked for a check, which you have refused. I doubt that you have the right to refuse a check. (Applause from the right) I insist that we now have a check on Amendment No 16.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to point out that in the next report we are going to vote on – the Ebner report – the Spanish version of paragraph 14 of Recommendation 2 of the Annex does not have the same meaning as the original version. I would therefore like to ask that, when it comes to the vote, we vote on the text of the original version of that paragraph.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this has undoubtedly been a good debate between the institutions and 2003 will be an important year against the backdrop of enlargement. We must ensure the good functioning of the Union for our citizens present and future. That applies very much to the process of how we legislate, how we implement legislation and how we enforce legislation. The debate has been very wide-ranging debate as regards how we legislate in this process. However, I could not help thinking while listening to the many detailed questions that we have heard that perhaps more of what I and my colleagues have been dealing with could have been dealt with at an earlier stage in the Committees, to give us a more strategic debate here today. On behalf of my group, I welcome the emphasis on impact assessments and the emphasis on involvement of our citizens and transparency. That has to be the right way forward. I would raise some concerns about the Commission's powers of enforcement in terms of infringement proceedings as we move towards enlargement. We must make sure that sufficient resources and measures are available in this respect. The same goes for the Court. The Court has to be fully resourced in order to carry out its tasks in the difficult times that lie ahead. We have had a good debate, a good exchange, but I still am left wondering whether it has truly been the strategic debate that should have engaged all of this House and our citizens outside. We have done well but we could still do a lot better.

Political group: ELDR
Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen, I confess that when I was listening to you, Secretary-General, another great speech was resounding in my ears, the speech by Martin Luther King, who once declaimed in New York: ‘I have a dream’. And listening to you, I had a dream too, a dream that your words on immigration were echoed by all of the Members of this House and did not remain yours alone. (Applause) I had a dream that all of the Heads of Government who say that they admire you, admired what you have just said and your lucid words on immigration. I had a dream that finally the peoples listening to you admired your speech and your lucid and humanist views on immigration. Because, ladies and gentlemen, there is no point in giving Mr Kofi Annan a standing ovation if, in our day-to-day work, in our resolutions, in our laws and in our countries, we do exactly the opposite of what he is asking us. (Loud applause) And that is why, with admiration and joy – even if I admit that our group was sceptical about your being awarded this Sakharov Prize, because we wanted it to go to a man or woman from Iran or Chechnya who is fighting for their freedom – and, because you have demonstrated such clear-mindedness here, I am asking you, as a Sakharov Prize laureate, to ensure that the Turkish Government frees Leila Zana, to ensure that the Cuban Government lets this Sakharov Prize winner go and, above all, you are asked to ensure that the UN takes an initiative to enable the Jewish people, who had to emigrate from Europe because they were threatened with annihilation, to live in peace and to enable the Palestinian people, who have the right to a State, to live in peace. It is this idea, this strength and your lucidity that inspire me to salute you as the laureate of the Sakharov Prize. (Loud applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, allow me first to express my thanks both to the Commission and to the three rapporteurs for their important work on this matter. The Erika catastrophe in autumn 1999 caused many to react, which is a good thing. At the same time, it would have been even better if we had acted in advance instead of reacting afterwards. Then perhaps we could have avoided a catastrophe. There is much that is good in what we must decide on today. That applies both to the stricter requirements on the design of oil tankers, better rules on port state control and the tightening up of the rules on classification societies that will also result from this. At the same time, I feel that many question marks remain. For example, what is the point of preventing vessels from putting into EU ports if we do not prevent them from navigating our waters? Realistic assessments suggest that we will only be able to stop a further 10-12 vessels per year. Will this be sufficient? The latest major accident resulting in oil discharges just a few weeks ago involved a double-hull tanker. This means that not even the mandatory introduction of this type of hull will provide any kind of certain solution. Allow me to take up one further matter, namely all the cases of oil discharges that are not an accident but rather are entirely deliberate discharges. Oil traffic in the Baltic has doubled since 1995 and in a few years’ time will have trebled. Every day we suffer two new discharges on average. A short time ago a vessel with a Maltese flag of convenience discharged oil in Swedish waters just off Gotska Sandön. The vessel then sailed into the port of Tallinn in Estonia. The question is who can act. Under the MARPOL convention Sweden is not entitled to act because the vessel is no longer in Swedish waters. Neither can Estonia act, because the vessel did not cause any damage there. Malta, for its part, probably does not wish to act, because the country enjoys great economic gain from this type of vessel being registered under the Maltese flag. And so yet another environmental marauder goes free. The proposals that we have submitted to date will not solve this problem in the future either. I therefore consider that there is an incredible amount still to do in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Intergovernmental Conference is a conference between the Member States’ governments. It is the Member States’ parliaments which are to decide whether its results are to be approved. We cannot therefore accept that the European Parliament should be given any form of right to make decisions on questions concerning the Treaties. We also oppose the proposal in the report to the effect that the EU should become a legal entity. In the same way, the report’s ideas about creating a military EU are alarming and unnecessary. The last election to the European Parliament, in particular, showed that EU citizens are some distance away from sharing many Members of the European Parliament’s ideas about a federal EU. EU citizens are still focused on the political debate taking place in the national arena. The EU debate is reserved for a small political élite. We therefore reject the fundamental features of the resolution.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I speak from three perspectives. That of external trade, where I believe the European Union should uphold progress towards a liberalised world-trade order; that of industry, European industry, where jobs and industries are at threat from sanctions and they are innocent victims of these sanctions; and I speak from the perspective of a UK Member of this House who is tired of receiving letters of complaint from companies whose business and whose workers' jobs are at threat from the sanctions through no fault of their own. I regret various aspects of this Dary report. I have to say that this timescale of ten years is wholly unrealistic and unreasonable. I regret the attempt to cling on to quotas and to interfere with trade in that way. Of course, I also regret proposals for higher rates of tariff, which is another intervention in trade. The amendment, which has been put down in my name and others, calls for a negotiated settlement of this dispute, which is World Trade Organisation compatible. That is essential. We have been down this road several times now and innocent companies and jobs are at risk and being threatened as a result of our failure to come to grips with this situation. I support the Commissioner's efforts. He has a difficult task. I have to say that I cannot think of anything more reasonable or pragmatic or sensible than the amendment which a number of colleagues have supported me in submitting.

Political group: PPE-DE