GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to start by offering my very special thanks to Mr Beazley for this report, because I think he has summed up Parliament's opinions in a particularly constructive way. You can tell that by the fact that we adopted this report unanimously in committee and that, today in Parliament, there are no amendments to this report left, and that on a topic that involves a very large number of problems and unanswered questions. So many thanks for it. The work we are going to do will be on a very good foundation. Our ongoing efforts will be particularly important because the future convergence of the media – television, computers, the Internet – will mean that we will have to find new ways to really guarantee that young people and human dignity will be protected. The proposals submitted by the Commission are therefore very much the right thing, and the Member States' support for them is urgently needed. I would like to again go over the three points that I see as being the most important. We need, firstly, new and more highly-developed models of self-regulation, enabling the industry and the responsible Governments to work together on a common basis. It is for this purpose that the model of jointly-coordinated self-regulation has been devised, and we need to develop it further. Secondly, it is not standards harmonised on a Europe-wide basis that we need, but Europe-wide minimum standards, particularly for video games and the Internet, in order to offer young people real protection. And, thirdly, media education is needed not only for children but also for their parents. All these tasks require involvement on the part of the Council, and it is to them, and for that, that I appeal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Olsson on his work and also on the willingness he has shown in incorporating the suggestions he received from all Members of Parliament into his report. The report’s explanatory statement gives a perfect account of the BSE crisis from its origins in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. The 180 000 infected bovine animals in Great Britain, in addition to the 1 325 in the rest of Europe by the year 2000 and the 101 human cases of new variant CJD have raised serious issues about animal feed and have highlighted the far from harmless effect of this feed on the food chain. Today, fortunately, we can congratulate ourselves on the scientific advances made in discovering the cause of the disease and on the efforts being made by the Commission and the Member States to eradicate it once and for all. However, there are still some loose ends that need to be tied up in order to complete these investigations and implement the measures that are strictly necessary, because the measures that have been implemented are extremely costly to public and private funds, and for this reason, we must not ask for anything that is unnecessary, even though it costs nothing to ask. Consequently, I wish to put forward the idea that, until there is scientific evidence to support it, we should neither gratuitously request that the age for obligatory BSE testing be lowered, nor should we ask for the list of risk material to be extended. It would be a different issue altogether were veterinary scientists to recommend this, but, as things stand, they have not done so. With regard to conclusion No 27, which calls for a reform of the CAP to tackle this problem, I would say that the CAP deals with a great deal more than food safety alone and that this safety is sufficiently complex to be addressed within the reform of the CAP. This is well understood by the Commission and hence the White Paper on Food Safety, the European Food Authority and all the legislation on food safety and animal feed that we are revising in this legislative period. This is the framework in which the technical and regulatory actions to be taken to guarantee food safety in the whole food production chain and not in the CAP are established, although one side-effect of it could be to impact on some aspects of the CAP. Finally, as has been said on many occasions, we think that if the crisis was not tackled earlier, it was not due to a lack of research, studies or mandatory regulations. It was due to a failure to implement standards and to a breakdown in the appropriate controls for their implementation. These are areas in which we should have more influence in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to begin by offering my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Graça Moura, for a very balanced report. He has raised a number of issues which merit further consideration. I agree with his observation that while the human rights dialogue could indeed be useful, unfortunately up to now it has not produced tangible results. Human rights continue to be abused, political activity is suppressed and, according to Amnesty International, there were more State executions in China last year than in all other countries combined. On the issue of Taiwan, I also condemn President Jiang Zemin's threats to use military force. Only peaceful negotiations carried out in an atmosphere of mutual respect will bring about progress. Furthermore, the cowardice of EU Member States in refusing a visa to President Chen Shui-bian to visit Europe is self-serving and counterproductive. Turning to other matters, the EU needs to review how the 1989 arms embargo is being implemented, especially since Member States are being allowed to interpret the rules themselves. In Ireland, for example, military goods can be exported to China, as long as they are not sold directly to the military. There are no end-user checks in place to ensure that they do not end up in the hands of the military or security services for purposes of which the EU would strongly disapprove. The UK continues to have a flourishing trade in British-made military goods. As the rapporteur for Hong Kong, there are a number of issues about which I have concerns but I feel it is inappropriate to raise those concerns now. I hope that in the very near future – possibly in the autumn – the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy will take an initiative and we will have a much more comprehensive report to deal with the many concerns which this House and indeed I myself, as rapporteur, have relating to Hong Kong.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am broadly in agreement with the rapporteur, certainly with regard to the Commission’s original proposal. It was high time to draw up better regulations, particularly with regard to overbooking. In my opinion, however, the Commission proposal is seriously lacking when it comes to flight cancellations and delays. In this context, the airline companies are being held responsible for a problem that is overwhelmingly caused by air traffic control and the aviation authorities. My objections are based on the following reasons. The Commission proposal is not based on a proper evaluation of the economic effect, and it has not considered the consequences of the measure for the sector and in particular for ticket prices. Although it provides increased protection, the proposal will limit the consumer’s free choice. The definition of a superior power or force majeure, given by both the Commission and our own Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, does not contain enough certainty to be able to properly distinguish between delays and flight cancellations which fall outside the responsibility of the airline companies. It can be argued that the airline companies ought to recover the damage from the appropriate party themselves, but that is not feasible in practice. Where we are talking about regional or low-cost airlines, it would probably be preferable to let consumers themselves choose whether to pay a premium above the price of the ticket. They could probably then cover themselves against flight cancellations. This option could easily be introduced by the sector itself. I have a couple of remaining questions for the Commission. Can the Commission confirm that it intends to carry out a thorough economic analysis of the consequences and the effects of its proposal, of the increasing costs for the airline companies and of the new flight tariffs in the different segments of the aviation market? Can the Commission confirm that it intends to investigate the real reasons for flight cancellations and delays, so that we can have a better understanding of which causes are indeed the responsibility of the airline companies and which are not? Has the Commission also considered other policy measures which might ensure better rights for passengers than the ones presently included in their proposal? Travel insurance aimed specifically at flight delays and cancellations might be a possible solution. We have had further debates and further discussions here in Parliament. My amendments are a necessary supplementary measure intended to provide a decent balance between ticket price and compensation. The first amendment relates to denied boarding and flight cancellations. I propose a supplementary measure to the sound compromise, i.e. that there should be a different arrangement for an additional category of tickets below EUR 200. This applies to both denied boarding and cancellation. The other amendment relates to incoming flights, to which Mrs Foster referred and does exactly what she wants. This is exactly what my amendment is about, and I look forward to your support tomorrow.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, although I am sure that you will have done so already, seeing as this is our first sitting after the summer I would like to remind all the Members that, a few days after the last part-session in Strasbourg, a tragedy occurred in this city: a huge tree near Parliament fell on some people who were attending a concert and many died, including a number of young people. I feel that, this being our first meeting after the summer recess, it is our duty to express our sympathy once again and send our condolences to the mayor of Strasbourg, the relatives of the victims and all the citizens for, apart from anything else, Strasbourg is our host city and the tragedy took place just a few metres away from the Parliament building.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, last month 21 homosexual Egyptians were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and forced labour because of their sexual inclination. They were part of a group of 52 homosexuals arrested in Cairo last year. On 16 January of this year Wissam Toufic Abyad was arrested and later sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for ‘repeated licentious behaviour’. These events are no isolated incidents. They are part of a growing and above all alarming trend that is characterised by an increase in reports of discrimination, arrests, mistreatment and wrongful convictions of homosexuals. This trend is all the more disturbing because homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt. At the same time the Euro-Mediterranean Treaty between the European Union and Egypt is on the point of ratification by both parties. Article 2 of this treaty requires respect for human rights and democratic principles. Everything suggests that Egypt is not respecting these principles. My group in the Parliament has always argued for the promotion of tolerance in the Mediterranean Sea area. We also recognise the importance of good relations between Egypt and the European Union for the stability and the development of this area. I therefore very much regret that these relations are coming under pressure because of the repeated violations of human rights by the Egyptian authorities. I am however delighted by the release of human rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, but wish to add immediately that things cannot stop at this individual case. The Egyptian authorities must keep working on greater respect for human rights in their country, the persecution of homosexuals because of their sexual inclination must come to an end and their individual freedoms must be protected. I therefore make an urgent appeal to the Council and the Commission to develop programmes in the framework of the European initiative for democracy and human rights that are aimed at strengthening democracy in Egypt. I urge our fellow MEPs in the Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries to broach the human rights issue in Egypt at their next meeting with Egyptian parliamentarians and also to involve representatives of the social midfield in this process. Should these steps prove to be of no avail, Mr President, then I would plead for a postponement of the ratification of the Euro-Mediterranean Treaty.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, thank you for your sincere words concerning Mrs Anna Lindh. We grieve for Anna and miss her, in Sweden, Europe and throughout the world. As you said, our thoughts go first and foremost to her family, husband and two sons. Anna succeeded in combining the things we often talk about, namely family life, parenthood and a politically very active life. She had daily contact with her two sons. She went home for parents’ evenings arranged at the school attended by her boys. She was an unusual politician of the very best kind: one day she was at the UN, the next day she was meeting other foreign ministers, and the day after that she was standing in the market square with immigrants to Sweden or engaged in a discussion with school pupils. She was sincerely committed, not only to domestic policy and to the world, but also to European cooperation. She did a lot to gain grass-roots support for European issues in Sweden. She also did a lot for Sweden in Europe and was Europe’s voice in the world. It was a privilege to be able to work with Anna. She was well-informed; she was committed; she was almost always happy; and she was considerate. We best honour Anna’s memory by fighting for democracy, human rights, a more open society and the enlarged EU that was one of the most important issues for Anna. She fought for wider and deeper European cooperation, as well as for a more active foreign and security policy. It is by doing the same thing that we honour Anna’s memory best of all. (Loud applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the European Parliament is naturally very pleased to see that the Council and the Commission are taking its opinion into account before the Geneva session. During this term, it has expressed several concerns that it hopes will be reflected at the session, and I would just like to mention five of them. The first is ensuring that human rights are not subject to double standards. A failure to condemn flagrant violations of human rights in major powers such as China – torture, disappearances and the death penalty – Russia – with Chechnya – and the United States – with Guantánamo – would be unacceptable to the public. Large and small must be in the same boat. The second issue relates to the European Union’s decisions: its votes must reflect the concerns that Parliament has expressed in its annual reports and its resolutions, in particular with regard to strengthening international law as a guarantor of human rights in the world. Parliament has on many occasions highlighted the importance of ensuring that every country adopts the international conventions on the abolition of the death penalty, torture and antipersonnel mines. It has regretted and strongly criticised the pressure the United States has exerted on certain countries to force them not to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Moreover, it has emphasised specific topics such as violence against women and children in particular, which you mentioned as one of the thematic issues. The third concern is that condemning terrorism and countries that shelter terrorists must go hand in hand with condemning all of the abuses and violations of human rights perpetrated today in many countries in the name of the fight against terrorism. This fight is certainly important, but it must not flout international law nor infringe upon human rights. This concern of the European Parliament, highlighted in its resolution of January 2003, will be clearly reflected in the 2003 report on human rights in the world, for which I am rapporteur. The fourth issue, the right to reproductive health, which covers all of the services relating to sexual and reproductive life, was also given priority in that same report. I need not remind you that maternal and infant mortality, epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases and deaths following illegal abortions are the cause of more deaths today than any armed conflict. These tragic and unnecessary deaths continue to be the lot of the Developing World, and Africa in particular. We hope that the Council and the Commission will give a very firm commitment in relation to this right to reproductive health. Fifthly and finally, the European Parliament welcomes the coordination between the Commission and the Council and hopes that this will continue. As in 2003, it would like an ad hoc delegation to be able to attend the next session in Geneva.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Mr Oostlander has accomplished a huge, difficult task, endeavouring to reconcile the extremely diverse viewpoints expressed by Parliament on a controversial and much-debated subject such as Turkey’s accession. The result is a resolution which is acceptable as a compromise but which we might have liked to be marked and inspired by greater optimism so as to send Turkey a more positive message, as Commissioner Verheugen advocated too, despite the fact that this country still has a great deal to do and many changes and innovations to make before it can hope to join the European Union, as the resolution rightly states. We need to establish whether geography and religion are criteria which restrict the possibility of accession or whether Europe is conceived as a set of values and principles with the result that countries that share those values and principles of democracy and freedom have the right to apply for membership. It is in this spirit that, to Article 52 of the report, which notes that the conditions for opening negotiations are not yet in place – which is undoubtedly true at present – we prefer the version contained in Amendment No 11, to which Mr Dell’Alba referred just now, which expresses the positive view, the confidence that the requirements can be met if Turkey carries out the necessary reforms. I too am grateful to Mr Oostlander, who appears to be willing to accept this amendment, if not as a replacement for point 52, at least as an addition to it.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted in favour of this report even though, on certain points, my assessment, and even my approach, were in some ways different. The European Parliament has, in fact, succeeded in resisting the reactionary pressure exercised by the fundamentalist Right.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the war in Chechnya has now been raging for four months. The European Parliament has condemned it and has demanded a ceasefire and political dialogue. Parliament has helped to ensure that humanitarian aid is given and that European Union funds are diverted in this direction. There is no end to the war and to the suffering of the civil population, let alone a permanent solution to the conflict. Has the EU really done everything in its powers? The fact is that the Council and some Member States, including Germany, are extraordinarily reticent in their political, diplomatic and economic reactions to Russian’s persistent refusal to enter into political dialogue. The European Union and its Member States must make it clear that the completely disproportionate use of military power to solve the conflict in Chechnya and the massive infringements of human rights are unacceptable. The European Parliament should fight for the partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia to be suspended until Russia agrees to a ceasefire. In addition, we should call on the Member States to impose additional political, diplomatic and economic sanctions. Arms deals and financial support for the warring factions must be stopped immediately. Russia’s sovereign right to protect its territorial integrity and pursue terrorists is undisputed. The question is, which instruments is it entitled to use in order to do so? The dividing line between dialogue and cooperation with Russia and sanctions because of the war is a very fine line. We should not discourage and isolate Russia as we did umpteen times in the last decade. Mutually advantageous cooperation and partnership with Russia are indispensable to the peaceful development of Europe. However, the European Union’s foreign policy will only be credible if it does not shrink from consistent political, diplomatic and economic action in the event of war and massive infringements of human rights.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Blokland in particular for his cooperation during this process. Agreement on the derogations in the scope of the directive was one of the hardest questions in the debate and conciliation process. The aim was for strictly limited derogations and the clearest possible definitions. In my opinion this has been successful, meaning that ecological targets and compatibility with other Community policies can come about in what is actually an easily realisable way. Parliament was also pushing for greater transparency and better opportunities for the public to have access to information. Thus, in the conciliation process we were able to agree that plants that incinerate more than two tons per hour should publish a report on their emissions each year and smaller incineration plants should be included in the lists that would come under public scrutiny. The limit values for emissions in the annex to the directive were definitely the most difficult point. In this respect the conciliation process achieved a good result, as Parliament’s proposal for stricter nitrogen oxide emissions in all new cement kilns co-incinerating waste was approved. I myself succeeded in having some amendments made to the report, vital for the continuation of co-incineration practices that have been in place in Finland for years and which are more ecological than those contained in the directive that is now about to be approved. I am very happy about that, as the job I had as a new member having come directly to the second reading was not easy. The report by Mr Blokland, now at its third reading, was for many members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, elected to Parliament for the first time, the first real test of learning with regard to parliamentary practice. The procedures chosen by the institutions work surprisingly well, however. The end result can be considered good, and with good reason. The important element in all this, though, was the genuine desire for cooperation on the part of the three institutions. The work of the countries to hold the presidency, Portugal and France, was constructive, and we have to mention in particular the role of the Commission, which played a decisive part in bringing about a satisfactory end result. In my opinion, there is something to be learnt from this for the future and we must see to it that cooperation to achieve a more ecological European Union works.

Political group: PPE-DE