GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to propose an oral amendment concerning paragraph 34. In fact, I shall not propose any fundamental changes, as it is just a matter of linking several amendments which take account of new considerations, which apply following the tabling of the draft report, namely the peace proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I would propose keeping paragraph 34 as it appears in the draft text, and adding Amendment No 42 to this text of paragraph 34, by simply inserting the words ‘and welcomes it in this context’. As for the rest of Amendment No 42, it would remain as is; the words ‘in this context’ would be added, in other words, a simple link. The second part of Amendment No 9 by the could then be considered as an addition, as well as the second part of Amendment No 12 by the , which would also be an addition. These amendments are compatible. The President established that at least 32 Members objected to the oral amendment.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, pursuant to Article 142, I should like to ask the Bureau how, under Article 50 of our Rules of Procedure we will be discussing a matter such as the dialogue with Iran in the field of human rights? What does this have to do with urgent cases of breaches of human rights? This has nothing to do with the provision of Article 50(1). The motion tabled by the Socialist Group, concerning the stoning of women, a frequent practice in Iran, which is even inflicted on girls of 9 years old, made perfect sense. This is something I fail to understand, Mr President. I wish, however, to ask the Bureau a second question: If we are going to look at the dialogue on human rights between Iran and the European Union; I should like the Bureau to clarify the precise meaning and scope of this debate, because according to the Iranian authorities and according to what we can read about the dialogue on the Internet, what they are saying is that Islam is being persecuted in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom. It is there, in print. I should like to have clarification of this matter.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would like to read a section from the April 2001 report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. I have been assured by Commission officials that negotiations for third country fisheries agreements are based on information provided by this committee. Regarding the most recent stock assessment of octopus in Mauritania, the report says '... the assessment conducted in 1998 indicates that the stock was over-exploited...' and it then goes on to say that '... the 1998 working group in Nouadhibou recommended a reduction of 25% of the fishing effort exerted by the cephalopod fisheries...'. This is a far cry from a scientific endorsement of increasing European fishing of octopus even if certain other fleets have reduced their effort. The Commission states that there was a more recent assessment by Spanish scientists. However, despite repeated requests, Commission officials have so far failed to provide a copy of this document. I believe there is an important principle here in relation to access to information. Parliament, which is the budgetary authority, is being frustrated in its attempts to obtain the relevant scientific information on this major third country agreement. I cannot understand how the Commission can go for a study by anonymous authors and ignore information provided by its own main committee. Parliament has a right to know. The other point I wish to make relates to the clause which appears to facilitate the Atlantic Dawn. I am curious. I congratulate the Commission on taking legal action against the Atlantic Dawn, but I would now like to hear from the Commission the latest on this case.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank both rapporteurs for the great job of work they have done. The reforms of our fisheries policy that we are debating this evening are very important. In particular, Mr Varela’s reports on public aid for the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet are very important. On behalf of my group, I would at the same time express understanding for Mr Varela’s statement concerning oil pollution along the Galician coast. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports the Commission’s proposals for reform, containing those elements necessary to our being able to adapt the Community’s fishing fleet to the ocean’s resources. We might well have been able to endorse maintaining public aid for the modernisation of fishing vessels if this would exclusively have improved safety and working conditions on board. We could also discuss aid for renewal if we were to make the aid conditional upon more capacity’s being withdrawn than added. Under no circumstances, however, can we accept a continuation of the present situation, in which the European fishing fleet is becoming larger and larger at the taxpayer’s expense. One of the biggest problems for the European fishing industry is, specifically, that the fleet is too big. There are simply too many vessels for too few fish, and there are unreasonably large discrepancies between the ways in which the Member States have so far administered fisheries policy. To continue with this catastrophic policy, which will only exacerbate the problems and postpone the reform process which must undoubtedly take place, would be to pull the wool over the eyes of the fishermen. With regard to the proposed ban on cod fishing, we in the Group would like to support the conservation arrangements. We also emphasised, however, that, when such drastic measures for reducing the quotas are being proposed, we really need to be sure of the facts, for the measures would have very far-reaching consequences for the fisheries sector not only at sea but also on land. Research must therefore be accorded high priority, and sufficient resources must be made available. Everyone agrees that current fisheries policy has proved to be a failure. That is why it is absolutely crucial for us to support the Commission’s proposals for reform and thus to reject the tabled amendments aimed at perpetuating current fisheries policy.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to draw Parliament's attention to the situation of the people in Vietnam as a result of the floods. The International Federation of the Red Cross has said that hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam are likely to be short of food over the next nine months. It has also been reported that there have been violent protests by peasant farmers in the Thai Binh province. This seems to be very much in relation to the fact that the Vietnamese are trying to modernise and the modernisation costs are being basically borne by the peasant farmers. This situation has to be tackled because taxes on the peasants have increased dramatically over recent times because of the need to modernise. The farmers themselves are in a very, very critical situation, where they are extremely short of food and the excess taxes on them makes the situation even more catastrophic. We should listen to the appeals from the International Federation of the Red Cross and pay attention to the plight of these people who have, in the past, been decimated by such things as the Agent Orange used by the US. Now natural disasters are causing even greater problems for them.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As someone who has become involved in politics through student, youth and educational work, I am delighted that the “Youth” action programme is making an important contribution to fostering a knowledge-based culture within Europe. We welcome the exchange programme because it reinforces mutual trust between the young people of different countries and encourages mutual tolerance, and a willingness to cooperate and show solidarity. What goes on in the heads of young people of today has a special resonance for the future development and functioning of the European Union and European consciousness. I would like to concentrate on two Articles in particular: firstly Article 4 (2), because it refers to the fact that our overriding concern must be to ensure that when young people apply to the programmes they do not encounter any form of discrimination. Then there is Article 2(1), because it states that participation in cross-border exchange programmes within the Community will further young people’s understanding of Europe’s common core values, thereby increasing respect for human rights and stepping up the fight against racism. I am emphasising these two aspects because, as Mrs Pack has already said, the sanctions against Austria are having most impact on cultural organisations, and the educational and scientific spheres, as well as on scientific cooperation. This contradiction illustrates how un-European and discriminatory these sanctions are, and how much they conflict with the Community of law and values. We endorse the “Youth” action programme and reject the uncalled-for sanctions against Austria!

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just am registering that I abstained on the Thorning-Schmidt report. My explanation of vote, if anyone can hear me, is that although we achieved a great deal for industry as a whole, and the rapporteur changed her view during the process of the report going through the European Parliament - in other words, she took hearing protection into account and moved towards weekly measurements, which I welcome - the amendment that we voted through in Parliament on its exemption for entertainment and leisure for five years while the Commission did a report on the special nature of the entertainment and leisure business was lost in conciliation. That was the reason for abstention. We gained some things for industry but lost some for the music and entertainment business.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I welcome this report on behalf of the Green Group and congratulate the rapporteur. Very heavy pressure was brought to bear on her to withdraw or compromise on her report. She is to be congratulated for standing her ground. The report points out that abortion rates are high in countries with poor sex education and where contraception is not emphasised. Abortion, the report states, should not be used as a contraceptive. I am sure we all agree that this is a concern. The report states that in order to safeguard women's reproductive health and rights, abortion should be made safe, legal and accessible to all. In Ireland, according to the Supreme Court decision some time ago in the 'X' case, where there is real and substantial risk to the life of the mother and when this risk could only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy, such a termination is lawful. This means that abortion is, in fact, legal in Ireland but is not legislated for. This is of concern to doctors, who do not have a framework of legislation within which to work and therefore feel unable to comply with this Supreme Court ruling. Access to abortion for Irish women is a concern. Over 6 600 women from Ireland had abortions in the UK last year. Recently, the formula under which EU citizens access health care in other countries which is not available to them on their home territory has been invoked. I would very much like an explanation from the Commission, under the subsidiarity rules, as to how this will operate in practice.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in my view, Mrs Hautala has once again drawn up a very important report, which has received much support in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. In addition, the Group of the fully endorses the 13 amendments. This whole report would, in fact, have been redundant if four years ago, during the negotiations with the Council, we had been able to persuade the ministers to consider the figures too. The Council of Environmental Ministers, however, proved insufficiently flexible. In those days, the discussion centred on the question whether we should aim for 50 ppm low-sulphur or whether we should aim for less. We now talk about 10 ppm sulphur-free. Sulphur is the poison for catalytic converters, just as lead was the poison for first-generation catalytic converters. We are now talking about an improved generation of catalytic converters that are about to be used. This is therefore regrettable. I should like to point out that it was Germany that got the ball rolling, and I am pleased that we have now reached a satisfactory result. I do have a few questions for the , because I do not understand why they claim that tractors should be treated differently. Tractors benefit just as much from this clean fuel, which means they produce less pollution. Even old tractors that have not yet been fitted with new catalytic converters stand to gain environmentally. It is, of course, true that this new fuel will be somewhat more expensive than the old, polluting fuel. If the problem is that farmers need to pay slightly more, then I, as a member of the Group of the , think that the importance of the issue warrants this. If this is the real problem to the , they should say so. It would be unfortunate if they abstained from the vote tomorrow, for then we would be unable to achieve the required majority. It is also important for the industry to know at this stage what the exact requirements are without having to wait until 2005. This is why I should like to urge the to reconsider this report very carefully and then perhaps to be soft-hearted after all and vote along with the entire Committee of the Environment.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, allow me to say that never before have I been as proud as I am this evening to be chairman of a committee which has impartially given an extremely thorough opinion and detailed suggestions to the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. It did so having in-depth knowledge, being totally objective, without any disagreement and in an extremely rigorous way, calling for a commitment to diversification of ownership and control of telecommunications and television broadcasting, calling for free competition, calling for the principle of pluralism to also be observed by broadcasters, and stressing the need for media pluralism because this is a fundamental right. We therefore drafted a series of assessments and put forward amendments to be incorporated, which the Committee on Freedoms did not take into consideration at all. We discussed matters impartially yet a majority in the Committee on Freedoms want to be obstructionist – that really is obstructionism – and somehow consider just the political aspect of the situation. Thus they try to foist onto Italy a situation and an assessment that it does not deserve, since we must not let Italy as a whole be given a negative assessment. We have thus arrived at a directive and a solution which Parliament certainly cannot be proud of.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, precisely because the actions of the Dutch police have been called into the question, I would just like to protest about actions against Jews and corporal punishment etc., being mentioned in the same breath as the routine inspection undertaken by the Dutch police, who, following a request from a number of disabled Italian spectators at the match, endeavoured to push teams from Italian television aside. When this attempt failed, these people were indeed detained by the police. Moreover, I have to tell you that the Prime Minister of the Netherlands himself, and anyone else who was involved had nothing but praise for the way in which the Dutch police, along with the police from other Member States who were in attendance, defended public order. I think this accusation is completely uncalled for, however much I, along with certain others, would have been only too pleased to see Italy win.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the Lisbon strategy remains the most coherent means of making Europe a centre of economic, social and environmental excellence. But it is not enough for Europe to proclaim its ambitions; it must also equip itself with the means to achieve them. Budgetary austerity is no such means, even though stability remains an aim that must be resolutely pursued. For all that, balanced public expenditure would be much easier to achieve if the European economy started growing again. The Right preaches austerity to us, claiming to defend future generations against the burdens imposed by our generation. But what will future generations say if we leave them a world characterised by gross inequalities, where insecurity and unemployment marginalise more and more of the population? The virtues of American flexibility are extolled to us. And yet the unemployment rate in the United States currently stands at about six per cent of all active jobseekers. This concept of actively seeking work is important, because it has served to remove five million Americans from the unemployment statistics since President Bush took office. Moreover, the country with the Statue of Liberty keeps 2.2 million adults of working age in captivity in its prisons. The American social model is manifestly not to be recommended. In the realms of research and of public and private investment, on the other hand, Europe should indeed draw inspiration from the United States. Where Europeans see risks, as in the domain of biotechnology, the Americans see opportunities. While our Union invests some 700 million euros a year in biotechnological research, the United States invests 25 billion dollars a year in its National Health Institutes. Europe has set itself the objective of allocating three per cent of its GDP to research. But where is the cash? In the meantime, 400 000 European scientists are working in America. Major European companies, such as Nokia, are investing more in their research in the United States than in Europe. The same applies to investments in infrastructure. The European Union has just produced a 62-billion-euro plan to revitalise the trans-European networks between now and 2010. The U.S. Senate, meanwhile, is discussing a project to spend 318 billion dollars on improving the motorway network alone over a six-year period after the House of Representatives had originally called for an appropriation of 375 billion. When people preach American competitiveness to us, we have to analyse the real facts behind the statistics. Europe will not become the world’s most competitive economy by jettisoning its social model or by getting rid of high-quality services of general interest. Europe must invest more in its human capital, more in research and more in its physical infrastructure. The next summit, Mr President-in-Office, must be the harbinger of a European spring.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the resolution that we have before us today is not intended in any way to criticise the key actors namely the Bhutanese or Nepalese Governments in the process of finding a solution for the 96 000 Nepalese speaking Bhutanese refugees living in the camps. There have been 17 000 children born in those camps over the last ten years. This resolution seeks to encourage initiatives and action and ask the Commission to help perhaps with financial mechanisms to support the re-settlement of these people. We welcome the fact that Japan has donated USD 1.3 million to the refugees, and that USD 1 million has been forthcoming from world food programmes. But the people in those camps would prefer to be re-settled back in their homelands and not have that money. They sent us this memorandum asking our support for action to solve their problem and to have justice. In it they say 'we pray at your end, honourable European Parliamentarians, that justice may prevail on us'. That is what we are doing here today. Let us hope that our resolution will bring some justice to these people, will help them re-settle in their homelands and achieve some results.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the establishment of formal reporting systems is clearly a requirement of Annex VI to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. The United Kingdom has a long-standing mandatory reporting scheme, MORS, currently established under Article 117 of the Air Navigation Order and administered by the CAA. There are several established systems for the interchange of safety data for analysis, such as JAA, EUROCONTROL, etc., as well as legal ICAO requirements. I would suggest that any EU initiative be compatible with the proven effective systems in place. My initial concerns were as follows: first, although the proposal insists on confidentiality and disidentification of reported information, which is a purely legal issue, it does not satisfactorily tackle the issue of information abuse, especially since data could be made available to third parties through many different channels, including the so-called and loosely-defined 'research institutions', etc. Aviation is always under close scrutiny by the media and such additional opportunities for reporting would inevitably be misused. It is therefore necessary that all parties using and providing data can genuinely trust the system. My second concern referred to Article 2 and Annexes I and II. It is generally thought amongst safety experts that it is not the quantity of data that is important, but the quality of the reporting and analysis. The lists of examples of reportable occurrences may need to be addressed. As it stands, the proposal could become over-regulated, difficult to manage and have no added safety benefit. My third point referred to Article 4. I believe it is essential that reports from pilots and other staff members be made to their own company. Bypassing their own company structures would weaken the internal reporting processes that have been built up over the years. My final point refers to Article 8, which appears to go too far by establishing a totally blame-free reporting system. This would need to be amended as there could be circumstances in which gross negligence is involved. My own experience over a number of years has shown that confidential reporting works extremely well. However, in such a safety-sensitive industry, it is important that all employees follow the strict rules, regulations and practices that are laid down. I would like to thank Mr Collins for producing a comprehensive report. It was a great pleasure to work with him. I believe that we have now reached a sensible conclusion and would hope that the amendments adopted in committee, which address those concerns, can be supported in the plenary vote. Honourable Members, I am in no doubt that all of us here welcome initiatives to enhance safety, but they must be well thought through and beneficial to the entire aviation industry and the public at large.

Political group: PPE-DE
Never before have I seen so many Members of the European Parliament put massive pressure by their national party leaderships. It is for that reason that the result of the vote does not correspond to the honest convictions that many of us have. What I say now I say also with those in mind who dared not follow their conscience. The EU must become democratic before it can be enlarged. That is what we promised our electorates in 1999. Yet the EU has not done its homework, and the Treaty of Nice is a mockery. That is why the EU can work only if the Convention and the governments decide on a real constitution, one that is democratic and transparent. Although I am very much in favour of the EU's enlargement, the accession of ten new members at once means that it is at present taking on too much. The reason why I voted against the Brok Report is that it presents us with a world of illusions. I could not even vote in favour of the accession of Poland, where too much is getting out of hand, and the Polish Government is playing an active part in the abhorrent war of aggression in Iraq. I abstained in the votes on all the other states, my primary concern being the question of whether the West is ready for the East, the answer to which question is in the negative.

Political group: PSE