GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, the world has changed in recent years, and unfortunately not always in the direction of greater peace and security or more partnership and peaceful coexistence. Since the Second World War, the peoples of the world have given the UN Security Council many rights and a high degree of responsibility for security and for maintaining peace. Even if the Soviet Union no longer exists as a victorious power and as a former second superpower alongside the USA, Russia, as its successor state, is not an unimportant country. Russia has nuclear weapons, it has boundless resources, and it has played a key role in shaping European and world history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The expanded European Union has greater scope for partnership with Russia if the residual fears stemming from the Cold War can be overcome and if, for example, economic cooperation with the candidate countries from Central and Eastern Europe can be harnessed and not deliberately excluded. If we wish to move away from a policy of conflict throughout Europe we should not create new confrontational situations based on a new geographical strategy. We should instead offer Russia a genuine and practical partnership. In doing that we certainly should not treat the number of meetings and summits as some kind of yardstick. No, what we need to measure is real results. Our area of common interest is so great that cooperation and economic partnership with Russia is the only reasonable way forward, which in the long run will be of benefit to both sides and will promote security and lessen social tensions.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I voted in favour of the 1998 directive on legal protection for biotechnological inventions, which I considered to be in order, although, like most of the texts we vote on, it certainly leaves room for improvement. It is, however, necessary, as we cannot allow there to be a legal vacuum on this subject in the European Union if we want to stay competitive in international research, which we certainly will not if we do not give legal protection to inventions in the field of biotechnology and freedom to research. Such freedom, however, must not lead to the erosion of ethical boundaries. The hope of sufferers that there will be treatment for their as yet incurable diseases leads me to believe that even the Church must be open-minded about putting in place, and making use of, new methods of treating chronically sick people. Research using existing stem cells, and the promotion of it (also favoured by President Bush of the USA) should be permitted in basic research throughout Europe. Research on adult and foetal stem cells should, however, be given priority. The use of stem cells for therapeutic purposes is marching on as a potentially revolutionary new method for treating diseases and injuries. The therapeutic objective is to develop differentiated cells or permanent tissues for transplantation into patients with diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, heart attacks etc., conditions for which there are, at present, no effective therapies or treatments. It is, in any case, clear to me that this should involve only stem cell lines which have already been produced and which can be suspended in a culture in which they can proliferate. For me, erosion of the ethical boundary begins with the deliberate breeding of embryos for research purposes. That must not be permitted.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, firstly can I say that the EMAC report is pretty good and I hope we do not amend it too much. The key word is “supplementary” pensions. We are not trying to relieve poverty or provide a basic income in retirement. The second point is that it is important that we provide decent pensions to enable citizens to move around Europe. So I welcome the emphasis on removing the restrictions on the investment of pension fund portfolios and support the objective of removing barriers to labour mobility. The key is to keep it simple or it will not work, it will not remove the obstacles. As Mr Tannock has said, there are demographic pressures upon us and it is in our interest to facilitate the development of supplementary pension schemes both around Europe and also in many countries within Europe. On the issue of biometric risks, which we have heard a lot about, clearly a pension by definition has one biometric risk, which is longevity. Once you start building on top of that, you are on dangerous ground if you make it a condition of a passport. What we need is to have a very simple proposition, and then let the market sort the rest of it out because that is what the market is for. The biometric risks problem means many different things to different people. We must try and get a simple product which is marketable and can be moved around this market, because if we do not, we will end up with a product that does not work at all that the different Member States cannot make use of. So the key is to keep it simple and make it work.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia is becoming an ever more important partner of ours and that importance is increasing all the time. Russian culture is perhaps Russia’s greatest asset, and yet we know little about it. It is a major asset for Europe. My group is worried by the situation in Chechnya, and it does not seem to be improving. We are in favour of the political solution that Moscow also supports, but the results still seem poor. We fear a civil war and that the conflict will spread outside Chechnya, to a region where there are already any number of good reasons for a conflict. We want the Russians to know that this is harming the development of relations between us and that is a big issue. We demand the implementation of human rights. Should there not be a joint Chechnya conference? We need aid organisations here quickly. We do not know very much about the Yukos case, at least not everything, but the method of arrest gives cause for alarm. What we think is important is that laws are obeyed and that openness, which is vital, is practised, but, of course, we know that there is a lot of shady business going on in the transfer of Soviet property into the hands of just a few and crimes have been committed. Membership of the World Trade Organisation is very important, as is acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. Both these will help not just Russia’s development but the growth of its democracy. We also need cooperation on energy; that is the toughest sort of cooperation and the most important. In my opinion, we should combine our transport, telecommunications and energy networks with theirs. This would be the deed of the decade and would create a solid basis for cooperation between us.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first like to offer the praise I think is due. I am extremely pleased that the Presidency has stood by enlargement and the whole programme of enlargement, that there is a continued commitment to concrete negotiations’ beginning as from 2002 and that we are aiming to admit the first new Member States in 2004. That praise, I think, is due. However, I do not understand the way in which the leadership of the Convention has been put together. The composition is incredibly one-sided, and we have a huge need for bridge-building in this project. Where are the critics? We have had a ‘no’ vote in Ireland; we have had a ‘no’ vote in Denmark, admittedly a number of years ago; and we know that there is dissatisfaction among the peoples of Europe. Where are the critics? What has become of young people and, especially, women where this issue is concerned? When Mr Prodi was asked by Danish television what had become of women and young people, he called for honesty and said that, if the EU was to talk with government leaders, it needed men over the age of 30. If that is the attitude towards how we are to make contact with the people of Europe, then ‘thank you for nothing’ is what I say. With regard to the anti-terrorism package, I do not understand why the aim is not to adopt an independent European stance on this issue. I do not understand why there is once again the desire to be the puppy of the United States. I do not understand why we do not concentrate much more on preventing future terrorism instead of taking the line adopted by the United States.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, September 11, the attacks on the twin towers in New York, opened up a new chapter in the concept of war – namely, an asymmetric, large-scale attack by a well-organised and well-resourced, fanatic, international, Islamist grouping affiliated to al-Qa'ida, with no respect for the traditional rules and conduct of war as we know them and very difficult to formally classify under the Third and Fourth Geneva Protocols of 1949. Therefore, all the demands made by this resolution to treat the detainees either as innocent bystanders caught up in American crossfire in Afghanistan or common-law criminals subject to due process are legally not sound, and not necessarily desirable either – particularly if we are to protect Europe's security and people from further attacks. Also, the state's first duty is always to protect its innocent citizens from future attack from any such terrorist groups. The US would not waste valuable public resources detaining those who pose no security risk. Indeed, after exhaustive enquiries, many have been returned home, including three juveniles – one who in an interview to the British press testified to the humanity of his captors and was grateful for formal English-language instruction on the base. The rest – including the EU citizens involved – are undoubtedly dangerous or a source of ongoing useful intelligence and should either be tried for war crimes, if appropriate, at standards compatible with international norms or held in humane conditions as illegal combatants for the duration of the war, with Red Cross and consular access, until Mr Osama bin Laden is captured and formally surrenders his terrorist network and their declared war on the West. I do not accept that habeas corpus applies in emergency situations like times of war or national emergencies, so its inclusion is totally inappropriate. No prisoners of war during the Second World War were allowed to have a fair trial – everyone knows that they were detained for the duration of war. Furthermore, historically, citizens of any country – and the UK in particular – who in times of war went abroad and fought against their own armed forces or their allies were potentially indictable for treason, historically a capital offence and even today a very serious offence. Therefore, the Liberal motion before us today will not be supported by me, as its primary purpose is to bash the United States of American in its global war on terrorism.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order on the same issue, there is a distinctly unpleasant odour permeating this building, not just in this Chamber, but outside as well. Last month the Quaestors told us that the reason for this smell then was that an animal had died in one of the drains. Are we expected to accept the same excuse this month? It is not acceptable. We should not be asked to work under these conditions. Staff should not be asked to work under these conditions. It is high time something was done. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
The fight against the greenhouse effect is a major challenge for the industrialised countries and constitutes a specific duty in respect of the peoples of the developing world who are already paying for the consequences of global warming. Accepting the establishment of a market in carbon dioxide emissions at international level amounts to letting western countries duck their responsibilities by purchasing fictitious Russian emission rights or financing projects in southern countries that are completely inconsistent with their development needs, without any means of checking actual reductions in emissions. Pollution is not merchandise. If it becomes a source of profit, the door will be opened to every abuse. The draft resolution proposes to ratify the establishment of such a system, when ‘the technical and legal aspects have not yet been investigated’ and ‘the functioning and effectiveness of the system must be tested’. No controls or sanctions are proposed. Moreover the development of nuclear energy and carbon sinks must be excluded from the calculations for the reduction of emissions. If the European Union is to respect its commitments it must adopt an ambitious European programme for combating the greenhouse effect without delay – and on a completely different scale from the motion for a resolution in terms of policies and measures. In particular, action in the transport sector must be taken into account. - Lund Report (A5-0197/2000)

Political group: GUE-NGL
The European fishing sector is currently suffering a series of challenges due to an increase in competition caused by the globalisation of the fish products market. There is also a clear need for greater protection of the marine environment and rational management of exploitable fisheries resources. In this context, it appears necessary to increase international cooperation and ensure that the Community consolidates its undertaking to define a law on fish stocks. The principle tool for achieving closer cooperation is the Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs), which play a key role on the international scene but which lack the human resources for the Community to be adequately represented. The RFOs are particularly suitable for achieving the objectives established because of their regional nature, but, above all, they contribute to the rational management of resources by reflecting the specific characteristics of the fishing areas. In this context, considering the importance of RFOs for the future of the common fisheries policy and the different levels of organisation, competences and development of each organisation, the Community needs to adapt its participation according to their respective characteristics and to harmonise its role within the 30 existing RFOs, in order to speed up transposal of the recommendations adopted by the RFOs into Community law.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Nice Summit was characterised by weak decisions. However, it will not impede progress towards an ever stronger European Union. When national measures have no effect, that is when Europe comes into play. We are experiencing this with BSE. Suddenly, all sides are calling for effective cross-border consumer protection and robust action where wrongly labelled products are concerned. We are also experiencing this with the fight against unemployment. The SMEs feel the effectiveness of union-wide initiatives for growth and employment, which are designed to underpin the measures introduced by the Member States. One of the first things to come out of this programme is that EUR 450 million is to be made available for growth-orientated SMEs. On behalf of the Group, I would like to congratulate Philip Bushill-Matthews on his report, which bears witness to his exceptionally detailed knowledge. We concur with his criticism of the Commission for providing too little information too late. Just how are we supposed to oversee matters properly, or even submit solid programme proposals under such enormous pressure of time? We need clarification on which of the three facilities – start-up capital, guarantees, or joint ventures – have achieved the best results, in which States and which sectors companies were set up, whether the small enterprises had access to foreign capital too, or whether statements originating from SME circles are correct, according to which, more than 50 000 new jobs were created simply by means of interest subsidies to the value of EUR 100 million, which age groups are especially required, and to what extent women were involved. In talking to SMEs in my constituency, I constantly met with complaints that the funds are virtually only ever granted to enterprises in state-of-the-art technology. Other innovative enterprises, from the craft industry for example, ought to qualify, too, to my mind. We must also take greater account of the sustainability of services. Mr President, let us seize on the initiative emanating from Mr Bushill-Matthews’ excellent report. The more detailed the information, the sooner confidence in EU initiatives will grow.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, the Greenland agreement differs from the other fisheries agreements that the EU has entered into with third countries because it secures the EU access to fisheries resources via financial compensation and offers of market access for Greenland products. Nor shall I conceal the fact that, for me as a Danish parliamentarian, Greenland and the fisheries protocol with Greenland are of quite special importance. This is the fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland, and one which is of great value to both parties. The financial compensation amounts to EUR 900 per capita in Greenland and gives the EU access to Greenland fisheries products, which constitute more than 90% of Greenland’s total exports. The fisheries agreement with Greenland also makes it possible for fishing rights to be exchanged with Iceland, Norway and the Faeroe Islands, something that maintains an overall balance in the north-east Atlantic. The fourth protocol contains clear improvements on previous protocols in the shape of increased transparency, so that the Community’s quotas now correspond to the real fishing possibilities in Greenland’s waters, and the EU has, moreover, a continued option on the quantities laid down in the third protocol in the event of the stocks improving. There is good cause for acknowledging your contribution, Commissioner Fischler, to what you called ‘the historic agreement’. The fourth protocol proposes that, upon expiry of the protocol, under-utilised fishing possibilities might be used up by countries other than those that derive direct benefit from the agreement in accordance with the principle of relative stability. There is no doubt that the EU’s fisheries agreements with third countries are now a significant part of the common fisheries policy. The general expansion of the coastal states’ fishing zones to 200 nautical miles in the seventies meant that 95% of fishing stocks and 35% of the sea was subject to the coastal state legislation. Traditional fishing grounds were lost, and a need was created for cooperation with third countries in order to ensure the continued survival of the Community’s fishing fleets with a view to preserving the Community’s share of world catches and securing continued supplies of fish to the EU’s markets. The fisheries agreement with Greenland came into force in 1995 in connection with Greenland’s withdrawal from the EU as a result of the self-government agreement with Denmark. Unfortunately, the Commission neglected to inform the European Parliament of experimental fisheries and of the creation of joint ventures. Joint ventures are, in particular, something I expect a lot of, and I shall propose that we in the Committee on Fisheries initiate a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages. I am able, in the end, to support Mrs Miguélez Ramos's report, and I should like to commend the work she has done.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Watson for his work, laying out the role the European Union must play in the fight against terrorism. I would also like to thank the President of Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, for her personal attitude on opening this sitting in greeting the family of a victim of terrorism, the Councillor from the Union of the Navarrese People, José Javier Múgica, whose widow and three children were present in the Chamber and who have asked me to pass on their thanks to the whole House and to its President. This Parliament has managed to become a torchbearer in the European fight against terrorism. It was the first Chamber to produce a recommendation in writing that it was necessary to politically isolate political parties which do not condemn terrorism. And it has been this Parliament which has managed to gather more than 400 signatures of Members of this House in a public commitment to combat the terrorism of ETA. We are now discussing the Watson report, and in this regard I would like to stress the need for the Union to have a European search and arrest warrant which replaces the formal extradition procedure for terrorist crimes as soon as possible. Because terrorism, and specifically the terrorism of ETA, affects all the citizens of Europe, not only the victims, but even Members of this House. I regret that Mrs Dührkop is not present due to illness. She could have told us of how ETA deprived her of her husband, Senator Casas. My own wife and family have also been subject to three attacks, which cost the life of a policeman. And other Members could also speak of their suffering. Spain and other places in Europe suffer terrorism. We are not going to indulge in theorising, because we are aware that, as the Watson report proposes, we have to oblige the Member States to finally reach an agreement, because terrorism represents the greatest violation of human rights suffered by the European people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there was a time when Europeans travelled all over the universities of Europe and studied what was still a common law based on the Roman law. Indeed, in my own country, Scotland, that lasted until the 17th century, during which 6000 members of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland at various times studied in the universities of Utrecht and Leiden. That kind of interaction of lawyers is one of the things which contributed most to our civilisation and from which our legal civilisation has grown. So this is a very good project and the time-tabling suggested by Mr Lehne and the Commission is feasible and worthwhile. Nevertheless, as Mrs Wallis has said, legal traditions are valued objects. People concern themselves greatly about the coherence and integrity of a legal order. Therefore it must be with great sensitivity that we move forward in bringing back together again legal systems and legal traditions through the kinds of common definition that Mr Lehne is suggesting. With that in mind, I have one doubt and it involves a difference with what Mr Medina Ortega has just said. Clause 14 of the report suggests that a regulation is really the best way to take this forward. The difficulty relates to subsidiarity. If these things are to be done well, common definitions will have to be sensitively adapted and grafted into what are very deep and organic legal traditions. You cannot do that by thrusting a regulation down the throats of the legal community. We in the United Kingdom have two legal systems, rather distinct, and it is going to be absolutely vital for this development that both are adequately and properly represented in further discussions, as they have been on bodies like the Lando Commission in the past.

Political group: Verts-ALE