GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, one year after Helsinki we have been following events in Turkey with anguish and apprehension. Thirty-three people were killed when the security forces intervened on 19 December, and what news is available on the state of health of those detainees forcibly transferred who have been on hunger strike since 20 October last, remains alarming. And we can only condemn the campaign of systematic repression and the ban on any expression of support for the prisoners, which has targeted human rights organisations in the first instance. We are well aware that the situation in Turkish prisons means we cannot ignore the violence and intransigence of certain prisoners and the fact that, in some cases, the Turkish authorities had lost control of whole sections of the prisons, as well as the constant reports from various authoritative sources of summary executions of prisoners who have tried to detach themselves from the organisations they belong to, and lots being drawn to select which prisoners are to fast until death. But it has been demonstrated that the Turkish government is incapable of ensuring peace and security in the prisons without the excessive and ineffective use of force, so it is the Turkish government that bears prime responsibility for what has happened and it must find the remedy for it. The remedy cannot be blind repression and paranoia about security. It is the Turkish government’s duty to prevent an already tense situation taking root and deepening into hopeless violence, boosting and strengthening violent and extremist groups and parties. It is up to the government to act. Obviously the European Union, like all of us, has a direct interest in a process of stabilisation and peace, and we hope it will be rapid. We have the clear duty to report and evaluate any progress towards greater respect for human rights in Turkey, which is why our group strongly supports the idea of sending a delegation into the Turkish prisons as soon as possible.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Torres Marques has done an excellent job; I think, on balance, there are three messages which come out of this report. The first is that, at some point, we have to move from words to deeds. I have attended more debates like this than I care to remember here in the European Parliament and at some point they start to sound like empty liturgies. So we really do need to move from discussion to deed, to measures, to implementing what we keep talking about. The second is that obviously we should welcome the European Commission's communications on tourism, but we also need to say to Commissioner Liikanen that they are not enough. You start with these communications, Commissioner, but you do not see them through to the end. Various directorates, not just yours, have passed general measures on tourism, the internal market, the Structural Funds and the environment. These measures need to be coordinated, even though there is no common policy, if the European Union is to produce the best possible tourism policy. The third point I want to comment on is the famous legal basis for tourism. There is a legal basis for industry, but there is no legal basis for tourism which, in a few years' time, will be the most important sector in industry. Despite the fact that, by definition, tourism goes beyond borders and is by definition an activity which is beyond a single Member State's control. We therefore need a legal basis which will not be a substitute for national policy but, on the contrary, will help us adopt a policy with added value at European level and, in the final analysis, will help Europe stand up to international competition. That is why we need to make sure when the Treaties are revised at the next intergovernmental conference that we have the legal basis which the European Parliament advocated at the last Intergovernmental Conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I, like other Members, would like to thank Mr Trakatellis for his perseverance. As pointed out in the final document, the World Health Organisation states that the five main causes of illness are neuro-psychiatric disorders, cancer, cardiovascular disorders, accidental injuries and respiratory diseases, which eventually become more and more serious because of resistance to antibiotics. We believed that the eight previous programmes endeavoured to prevent some of these diseases – and contributed to doing so – but we think that the aim of this action programme – which will begin immediately – is not only to supplement national policies, but also to approach the three objectives laid down in the document itself from a global perspective. These objectives are improving information and knowledge, reacting rapidly to health threats and health promotion and disease prevention. We believe that this will contribute to reducing inequality and assessing the impact of social, environmental and economic factors on health. We think that society, non-governmental organisations and trade unions, as the document clearly states, need to be involved if this plan is to be successful.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteurs we propose that the words ‘concluding summit in December 2003’ be deleted and replaced by ‘opening summit’. Then continue as in the text. There is a practical reason for this. The Convention will very probably end in June 2003 and if we do not want to have more than three months’ break before the Intergovernmental Conference starts, it cannot be in December, but must be after the summer recess. It must, therefore, be amended here as requested by the proposer, to read ‘There must be no more than three months’ break between the end of the Convention and the opening summit of the Intergovernmental Conference.’ That is the oral amendment. (The President declared that there was no opposition to voting on the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0399/2001) by Mrs Kaufmann, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the Commission White Paper on European Governance [COM(2001) 428 – C5-0454/2001 – 2001/2181(COS)]

Political group: PSE
Mr President, considerable progress has been made towards the establishment of a common European security and defence policy. The Cologne, Helsinki and Lisbon Councils have all made significant contributions in that regard. However, in all truth it must be said that decisions taken at these summits and any that may be taken at Feira will remain little more than aspirational until the Union has the necessary resources to implement such a policy. I agree with the recent comments of Commissioner Patten when he criticised EU governments for making ringing declarations which they are reluctant to underwrite with money and staff. If Member States are indeed serious about establishing a real security and defence policy then they must put their money where their mouth is. In the meantime we have to be realistic about what we can achieve and at the moment we cannot talk about operational autonomy for any European force. This will always be relative to our dependence and reliance on NATO which still owns the essential military hardware and which enabled EU governments to deploy their troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Unless and until we have a sufficient intelligence capability matching that of the US and the transport capabilities to put EU military personnel into world trouble spots quickly, we will continue to need a close working relationship with NATO underpinned by a structured EU-NATO dialogue which is not simply a replication of the WEU/NATO acquis. These realities must temper our discussions at Feira and elsewhere as must also the need to keep in mind the status and role of the United Nations. Let me conclude by saying I welcome the speculation that the Feira Council will endorse the concept of a rapid reaction police force which would swing into action after completion of military tasks. The experience of Kosovo has underlined the need for such an initiative and I welcome the fact that it may happen at Feira.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this time I voted against the Hulthén report. The European Community has the delicate task of deciding how best to proceed as regards making further progress on the one hand and considering the care, health and environment of our great great great grandchildren on the other. I therefore think that before adopting any measure, we must ascertain, by consulting scientists and experts who are constantly making scientific progress, whether it is right to continue with the ban on certain substances in the future and whether, on the basis of the research carried out by scientists, every step we take really is important. What I mean is that we have to realise that we are not as good at predicting the future as we unfortunately think we are.

Political group: PPE-DE
The Deprez report proposes that the holder of a long-stay visa who is awaiting a residence permit should enjoy the same rights to freedom of movement as the holder of a residence permit. This marks an improvement on the French initiative which proposed that a long-stay visa should offer the same rights in terms of movement as a short-stay visa. In 1986, when, on the pretext of combating terrorism, France reintroduced tourist visas, the European Parliament requested that these be withdrawn, perceiving “discrimination towards citizens of non-member countries”. Today, such discrimination has been made commonplace by the Schengen Convention and by communitising policy on migration. Visas are refused by consular offices that operate with a total lack of transparency and rarely have to explain their reasons. European consulates simply refer to “the migratory risk” or registration in the Schengen Information System. In addition to the vast number of official rejections, an incalculable number of verbal requests have been refused point-blank. A good deal of trafficking goes on in consulates because so few visas are issued. This constant humiliation of nationals from the Southern hemisphere has no purpose except to stop them crossing borders and no effect except to encourage illegal immigration. The Deprez report rightly concludes that there is a lack of transparency and democratic control when it comes to visas and movement in Europe. That is why I shall vote in its favour.(1)

Political group: GUE-NGL
If the purpose of creating a European Refugee Fund were to make asylum and refugee policy in the Member States of the Union more humane and open, then it would be a welcome step. The Fund, which is merely the product of a combination of three budgetary lines, will not do this. There is evidence in addition to the debate as to what the creation of the European Refugee Fund really means. It means “distributing the burden”. An approach whereby immigrants entering the EU in search of protection are seen as a “burden” which has to be “distributed” is fundamentally flawed. No policy which takes humane account of the needs of persons fleeing persecution can be constructed on such a basis. The policy of the Member States and of the Union is geared towards heading off and turning away refugees, as the recent inclusion of a “re-adoption” clause in the Lomé Convention demonstrates. If this is what the outlines of European asylum and refugee policy really look like and if refugees are seen as a “burden”, then creating a Refugee Fund is a cosmetic exercise designed to hide the real face of a European policy of turning refugees away. The Fund will not, in this form, cause any country to switch to a policy of greater openness towards the immigration of refugees. Nor will it improve the legal security of persons fleeing persecution and in search of protection. But it is precisely the legal security and the right of participation of refugees, which must be considered. The European Union calls throughout the world for freedom of movement for capital. But it is reducing the freedom of movement of persons yet further by closing borders and cutting itself off from refugees and asylum seekers. Every year many refugees die, killed on the external borders of the EU. To assume in these circumstances that creating a Refugee Fund will make for a more humane asylum and refugee policy is an illusion, which is why I have abstained.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament is using the Olsson report not only to take up a position on the current BSE situation, but also, in particular, to look into the future. Our objective is to guarantee food safety, and we will not have reached it as long as our knowledge of this disease is incomplete. That is why I particularly support the demand for the resources needed for continued research into TSE diseases to be made available by the Commission. We need to learn more about these diseases and epidemics, which were previously unknown, in order to be able to combat them more effectively. Society's hysteria, which was particularly marked in Germany, is diminishing. People are going back to eating meat, and are again buying it cheaply. There is a need for clarity about who, in the European Union, is to bear the costs of additional impositions such as tests and investigations, and conditions for this must be the same from one Member State to another. We must, in the same way, see to it that regulations are transposed in the same way in every Member State. The provisions of the TSE Regulation need to be stringently applied, with tough penalties imposed for disregarding or fraudulently evading them, not only as regards the production and utilisation of animal feeds but also tests, regulations on slaughtering and the disposal of hazardous material. Animal feed is the target of criticism as much as ever and will continue to be so until we have open declaration and can at last check to ensure that only what is listed on the container is actually in it. We cannot carry on being driven by fear of fraud, improper treatment and erroneous identification to destroy valuable substances and, apart from that, to import materials or feed from overseas, for example, where we have no influence on their production and composition. That is why I put working towards openness, ease of control, and truthfulness right at the top of the list, for only by them will we achieve credibility and trustworthiness. Until that day, the ban on feeding omnivores with meat and bone meal will have to stay in place. It follows from this, though, that the Commission urgently needs to develop innovative methods of disposal and recycling, such as, for example, the production of biodiesel from tallow or fats. It must at least be made clear that unprocessed offal, waste water, fat and tallow still have to be treated. We intend that this report should promote greater awareness and urge the Member States to be unstinting in their efforts to beat this disease.

Political group: PPE-DE
Let us continue with rice. EBA: Everything but Arms. If the 40 poorest countries are so poor and are dying of hunger, why do they have to send us rice? Let them eat it and then they will not be hungry! But my question is this: how can the Commissioner and the European Commission prevent Vietnam, for example, which falls within the Everything but Arms countries, from introducing its rice via its borders with Thailand and then Thailand from introducing it into the European Union? How can we guarantee that? How can it be controlled? Will we put a label on every grain of rice? How can we prevent the 40 poorest countries in the world, by means of multinationals we all know, which import rice, some of them here, from introducing these products via the poorest countries and wrecking our markets?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. You have now received the praises of three Members and it will probably come as a surprise to you when I join them in their praises. Yes, I too must compliment you on having basically made a move in the right direction with this initiative, because the old block exemption regulation, for all its good points, is quite simply and painfully out of date. It has proven to have so many shortcomings that we really do need to make a clean sweep here. But you also resisted the temptation to say, let us do away with the block exemption regulation altogether. No, you have submitted a proposal which, to my mind, really does have a great deal to commend it: multiple brand sales, for example, the abolition of the compulsory linking of sales and servicing, which can now be unbundled, more independent workshops, independent spare part manufacturers and much more besides. On balance, this is the way towards more competition as the consumer understands it. But, surprise, surprise, the devil is in the detail and needless to say, fault can be found on a few counts. But, let me be perfectly clear, we are talking about details and I think, after a long debate in committee, we have reached a good compromise in several areas, for which we have the rapporteur to thank. However, I must say, Commissioner, as you know, I have reservations on one point and that is the location clause. As I am sure you realise, there are several ways of looking at this clause. You say – the Commission says – that what is being proposed here is good for competition and will slash prices. I have my doubts. I wonder if what is being proposed really is competition and if it really will improve competition. Because what is being proposed here means quite simply that manufacturers will pick and choose and limit the number of sales. From that point of view, there is little difference in comparison with the old system, except that they really will be able to compete with each other. What sounds perfectly plausible and reasonable to start with may harbour a huge risk; because it is a closed circle, the big fish will be able to eat up the little fish. That is what worries me; that the end result will be that the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sales sector will be the first to go, eaten up by the large companies and resulting in more concentration even more quickly than is presently the case. That may cause prices to rise again at a later date, due to a lack of competition. That is why we have not suggested doing away with the whole idea. What we are saying is, let us include it in the regulation but postpone it. Then we really can look at it again in the light of specific events and decide whether or not to stick with it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, following on the discussion, would Mr Kinnock like to confirm to the House that career development based on performance and merit is going to be the foundation of the reforms that we approved in this House last year? Will he also take the opportunity to tell us what progress he is making in introducing structured performance appraisal throughout the Commission and in his moves towards a linear career structure.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am delighted to hear what the Commissioner has said about working closely with the United Nations. Some of the United Nations programmes which deliver on the ground are very effective, and sometimes more effective, than what the European Union has been doing so far. I want to ask two questions: first, what level of complementarity are you looking at when the Commission is trying to set an arrangement in place to work with the United Nations, or are we merely going to give the United Nations the money they require and they will do the delivery on the floor? This is a point that has taken prominence in Indonesia and in the Jaffna area of Sri Lanka where the UNHCR has been doing an excellent job in trying to rehabilitate and give support to people. The second question is really more broadly addressed to Parliament: are we going to set up a permanent standing liaison committee of MEPs involved with development and cooperation to report to the General Assembly of the United Nations each year on our joint cooperation?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the reason we wished to defer this report was that we wanted to ensure consistency in the work of the European Parliament as it influenced the course of European policy. The revision of GMO Directive No 90/220 is at the conciliation stage right now. It would be completely inconsistent not to wait until the end of this procedure before including references to GMOs in our directives and regulations. That is why, at the proposal of the draftsman of the opinion, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has unanimously voted to do away with all the references to GMOs in this report. And please do not tell us that we are barking up the wrong tree, and that this revision does not have any implications concerning GMOs, since a regulation of this type already exists for forestry. At the moment, we consume wine, but we do not yet feed on the wood of our forests. Contrary to what the executive committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development would have us believe, this revision slyly but irremediably introduces genetically modified vines. This is a clear indication that the European Parliament would, indirectly, give the green light to GMO experiments in the field of vine propagation or improvement. Why the rush? It is not at the request of the winegrowers or wine merchants or vineyard owners. On 5 July, some of these issued the Beaune declaration, expressing their great concern at the introduction of GMOs into their sector. We have received a reply from the confederation of producers of registered designation of origin (AOC) wine, saying, “We support the position of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as it offers the guarantee that European regulations are not going to permit the implementation of procedures to authorise the sale of genetically modified wine-growing materials which may be harmful to the brand image of wine growing.” Just who is going to benefit from this amended regulation which includes GMOs? The question – and the answer, of course – will have to come from the Commission, who must also tell us whether it is intending to continue to pave the way for us to end up with GMOs on our plates, and now in our glasses too. This is something that they are achieving, unfortunately, with the assistance of the French Presidency, in a way that is completely out of step with the way European consumers feel.

Political group: Verts-ALE