GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the enlargement of the European Union this time round is truly impressive. Ten new countries are about to join. I should like, if I may, to turn my attention in this interesting and highly promising development to Cyprus, rather than to what are indisputably more densely populated countries far closer to home. Cyprus, that tiny country with its long history and tragic vicissitudes over recent years, covers the far side of the Mediterranean dimension of the European Union and, by virtue of its position, can contribute a great deal to the Union's Mediterranean policy. We all know that the political importance of Cyprus far outweighs its economic importance to the future development of the European Union. At the same time, however, by integrating Cyprus, the European Union itself is demonstrating that it is an international entity with international credentials and this will help enormously in resolving the Cyprus problem. The implementation of the acquis communautaire in Cyprus is the key to reconciliation and cooperation and will enable Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to live side by side in a single, federal, twin community, free, independent state which respects human rights and the ethnic origins and religious persuasions of its people. It is the basis on which a fair, viable, workable solution can be found; the sort of solution that the UN Secretary-General's plan should bring about once it has been negotiated by the interested parties. More importantly, the integration of Cyprus into the European Union is a test and a challenge to Turkey in its efforts to speed up the process of meeting the Community criteria, the process which will enable it too to join the European Union at a later date. May everything go according to plan!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am reluctant to speak, but after what Mr Medina Ortega has said, I have no choice but to respond. Mr Medina Ortega, it is quite obvious what you are doing. Let me remind you – as you are, of course, well aware – that there has been correspondence between the President of your group and the President of the European Parliament. You are also aware that there are certain rules which apply when the issue of immunity is examined by the committee responsible, and that means that the relevant authorities within the country where someone is accused of certain conduct must have supplied this information. This was also the case in 1990, when your current group President was the President of Parliament. I would ask you to remember that our debates here are not a preliminary to the Italian election campaign, which is essentially what all your manoeuvring is in aid of. (Applause from the Group) Now that your group and the leading figures in your party have engaged in this scandalous behaviour towards Austria, we will not let you conduct an election campaign here in the European Parliament again. Let me make it quite clear, Mr President, that our fellow Member, the President of the European Parliament – who is, after all, the object of your criticism here – has behaved quite correctly, as she has described in her letter to the President of the Group of the . Believe me, Mr Medina Ortega, if you want to conduct an election campaign here you will have your election campaign. But you can be quite sure that we will not let you air your unrepresentative and indefensible views in this forum. (Applause from the Group)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my congratulations to Parliament and to all those who have also offered their help. This really is a good day for European democracy. There can be no European democracy without European political parties. As we also said in yesterday’s discussion in connection with the constitution and the outcome of the Convention, this statute is an important step towards giving politics a fully European dimension. Allow me to thank all those who have offered their help: Mr Tsatsos and also Mrs Schleicher who, with this Parliament’s reports, prepared the way years ago; and next, of course, the Commission, which submitted the draft law to us very quickly once the Treaty of Nice had come into effect. Most particularly, I should like to thank the Greek Presidency of the Council, for which this was quite a major commitment, and a very successful one. My sincere thanks to my Greek fellow MEPs. (Applause) We have a lot of European statutes that are not yet operational. Today, we finally have one that can come into effect and that works. (Applause) *** Report (A5-0069/2003) by Malcolm Harbour and Manuel Medina Ortega, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (COM(2002) 213 – C5-0262/2002 – 2002/0100(CNS)) Before the vote:

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should like to express my most sincere sympathies and undivided support for the Turkish people, hit yet again recently by another earthquake, with lives lost and extensive damage. I hope that those who lost their loved ones and those who were left homeless or lost their possessions will soon find the strength to recover from the shock of this unforeseen disaster. I should also like to mention here that the Greek government immediately expressed its support and sympathy and offered help to the victims of this catastrophic earthquake, and to pass on to the European Parliament just how much the Greek people sympathise with the suffering which the earthquake caused the Turkish people and how close it has brought them once again. The spontaneous response of the people, especially when disaster and suffering strike, is the ultimate expression of sincerity and faith in coexistence and solidarity between nations. I trust that in the future, in the very near future, these two nations, Greece and Turkey, will be brought closer by happy rather than tragic events, such as the accession of Turkey to the European family, the European Union, within which these two nations will enjoy and serve the same values and ideals of democracy and personal freedom, values and ideals which unite and safeguard their common desire for prosperity, peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, for me this is not a debate on the rights and wrongs of those in Aceh who campaign for independence, nor is it a criticism of Indonesia's right to intervene to secure law and order, so long, of course, as that country does not permit human rights abuses to be committed by any of its forces. It is a debate about the escalating humanitarian crisis. As we know, most of Aceh's 4.2 million people live outside the two main towns. For them food, water, electricity and communications have been disrupted. Healthcare and education have become impossible. Five hundred schools have been burnt down, thousands of people have fled from their homes and Governor Puteh has said that unemployment and poverty are now at alarming rates. We worry about human rights and I raise two issues. One is the fact that 77 community heads have been replaced by military personnel and the second is that active in Aceh are people like Major General Damiri, Brigadier General Suratman and others who have been convicted of crimes against humanity in East Timor. They are on duty in Aceh. Kofi Annan has appealed to Indonesia to ensure access to humanitarian aid and human rights organisations. He is right. The obstacles to this are in Presidential Decree 43/2003, which states that international and local NGOs are not allowed to conduct activities contrary to the objectives of the military emergency conditions. That is a catch-all provision that is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. It is not acceptable that all aid has to be rooted through the Indonesian authorities, nor that NGOs are restricted to Banda Aceh. Finally, we call on Indonesia to investigate with urgency the disappearance of the human rights defender Abdussalam Deli, and the killing of his colleague, Raja Ismail. I hope the Commission and the Council will assist us in these aims.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, let me start by extending warm thanks to Commissioner Bolkestein for the fundamental criticism he has very expertly levelled with regard to the German system and for the way in which other Member States can also draw lessons from this when they do not think first before they act. I have the feeling that Mr Trittin, whom I saw briefly on television this evening, has not yet grasped this notion. He acts indiscriminately and does not think about what the implications for Europe could be. The Commissioner has given a clear analysis on this and I think we should all be pleased that a solution to the problem now seems to be in sight. Ever since April, we have asked questions about this issue. On 1 July, we asked questions on this matter during the debate on packaging waste and, Mr Bolkestein, Commissioner Wallström then answered on your behalf that an enquiry would be launched. The real question is this: why have we had to wait so long, from 1 July to 21 October, for formal infringement proceedings? Industry is being seriously hampered by this German measure and is now asking how long it will take before the problem will be solved. Not only the German consumers suffer, all those foreign tourists who, via the German Autobahnen, spend their holidays somewhere in Germany or even further afield, also suffer under the system. A lot of money is simply left unclaimed. These consumers are also asking when this problem will now be solved. Secondly, when I look at my region, the Brabant and Limburg region, I notice that particularly in areas where there is a lot of cross-border movement, even smaller businesses that supply soft drinks, water or beer, often in non-reusable packaging, have suffered a loss in turnover of more than 30 to 40%. The Commissioner claims that, strictly speaking, it is possible, even under current procedures, for these businesses to claim damages. This is all well and good, but these small businesses wonder how long they will survive when a large proportion of their market is being closed off. The Dutch market, the Austrians, the Belgians and the French rely on this German market to a large extent. If it remains closed for too long, then this is very bad and we may well make things difficult for ourselves. That is why I am urging the Commissioner to make every effort to speed things up, so that the system is actually withdrawn. Mr Trittin failed to indicate in so many words that that was his intention, but I would ask you to pull out all the stops. What is the timeframe we should be looking at? I should, in fact, also like to thank you for the efforts you have made. I have to say that the adequate response is very positive for the internal market in Europe. We are all in favour of this internal market, which is not only beneficial to the consumers, but where industry can, and should, gain a great deal.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in many EU countries – including my own – a lot of work still needs to be done to restore full confidence in the blood transfusion and blood products services generally after a period of tragic lapses in safety. This directive will go a long way and is extremely important because of that. I will come straight to the point I have difficulty with, and I support completely what colleagues – in particular Mr Bowis – have said. I cannot understand why blood from a remunerated source must necessarily be banned in Europe. Quite frankly, the biggest threat to our hundreds of thousands of patients in the EU who need blood and blood products is the lack of an adequate supply. The supply must be safe but, by definition, a voluntary patient who might have HIV is no safer than a person with no health problems and who is paid. It comes down to the proper screening and treatment of the product regardless of the source. We must not become emotional about this issue. I wish that all blood and blood products came from voluntary, unpaid sources. It is the ethos in my own country, and I would like to encourage it. We must encourage the public to donate blood. There is a scarcity of donations in my own country and many others. We are 50% dependent on imports into the EU. Self-sufficiency has to be a goal. However, to even consider, by definition or otherwise, banning all products that come from remunerated donors is a retrograde step. I am not alone in saying that. The voluntary organisations that look after the interests of patients who need these products are pleading with us in this Parliament and the EU not to ban all sources of paid donations. We must encourage the ethos of voluntary donation, but we cannot ban paid donations. If the patients – not the pharmaceutical or blood companies – are asking us, we should listen to them and respond to them. With the greatest of respect, it would be arrogant on our part not to do so.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, as others have said, I welcome Mr Schwaiger’s excellent work on what was a very complex set of issues to deal with. I also particularly welcome the fact that in his text he describes the forthcoming WTO round as a development round. It is a fact, of course, that of the 134 members of the WTO, two-thirds are developing countries, with another 32 in a queue waiting to join. But it remains the case that the exchange of trade commitments favours the bigger traders. They have much more to offer and their negotiating power is far greater. Many developing countries feel that free trade has not in fact been as free for them. Markets in the North remain restricted for many, as the most important developing country exports seek access. Accelerating globalisation is, of course, a fact of life. It nevertheless demands analysis and an acknowledgement that international trade is complex and is characterised by protectionism and by a system which fails to address the implications of subsidised agriculture for the poor. While we need, of course, to support the agricultural sector in the EU, and that is made clear in Mr Schwaiger’s report, we also have to recognise the need for developing economies beyond reaching markets to have access to food security so that people have enough to eat. And I hope that amendments along those lines will be accepted. The EU already has binding commitments to developing countries. These commitments, alongside international development targets, should be a central focus at Seattle. We are now, Mr Lamy, at a critical stage in the negotiations for a successor agreement to Lomé IV and we will soon be embarking on complex discussions on trade relations with 71 ACP countries. It is therefore very important now that we are negotiating a multilateral trade framework which respects that very critical relationship with the developing world that we continue to say that we will honour our obligations to the ACP. I would also urge the Commission and Member States to pursue a WTO binding commitment to allow all exports from least-developed countries duty-free access to European markets by 2003. There is also an urgent need to make sure that small and vulnerable states – landlocked states – are protected in future deals that are made. A Director-General of the WTO very recently said that the WTO must be an organisation where the little guy not only has a say but feels that he is protected and defended. I hope, Mr Lamy, that you will subscribe to that very important sentiment.

Political group: PSE
I voted against. The purpose of this action programme is to define objectives, to establish a basis for reflection, and to ensure the success of future Community projects in this area. Together with many of my colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party , I took up a firm position on this report. At first-reading, it is necessary to send a strong signal so that, when it comes to the second reading, improved consistency, the right balance and a realistic vision can be found. The report that we are voting on today will cause difficulties. The objectives that it sets out are too precise. They will lead to a lack of flexibility, and will completely block forthcoming Community initiatives. This applies when it comes to setting ecotaxes, or defining too precisely how the CAP is to be reformed, although I believe that reform to be desirable. Then again, some amendments go against directives which have already been adopted by the European Parliament, or else they place too many restrictions around those that we shall be considering in the near future. This applies in the case of environmental responsibility. A report such as this must allow the flexibility necessary to adapt European projects in line with developments in scientific research and technical progress.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to express my thanks to Mr García-Margallo y Marfil for his work. I only intend to speak about the taxation of aviation fuel. Parallel to this debate, we have been holding talks with Mr Currie, the Director-General for Environmental Affairs, on the outcome of the negotiations in The Hague. In this context, I am sorry to say that aircraft emissions do pose a problem; although air traffic is not responsible for a large percentage of pollutant emissions, its volume is growing very rapidly, and we must therefore avoid any temptation to trivialise it. But we must also reach an agreement, because there are widely differing views here in the House about the method we should use to tackle this problem. I believe we all agree that it would be very difficult indeed to find a global solution but that a global solution represents the ideal outcome. There are now some – and they include a majority of the committee – who say they want a European tax, to which the rapporteur has rightly replied that such a tax could only cover a tiny percentage of the world's air traffic and, more crucially, that it would create a huge problem for European industry. This, I believe, gives us good reason to be sceptical about this solution, although views vary, even within the Group. I know that my own party at home would support the principle of a European tax, but I believe the time has come for us to make a real concerted effort to identify common ground and to seek the solution that has the greatest possible beneficial impact on the environment coupled with the least possible distortion of competition for European industry. To that end, the proposal for emission-based take-off and landing fees ought to be seriously examined, because it offers a means of including aircraft from other parts of the world, such as the United States and Japan, in the taxation regime when they land in Amsterdam, London, Paris or Frankfurt and thus of achieving greater environmental benefit and less distortion of competition. There might be problems with the WTO, but I believe it is up to the Commission to seek a solution at the WTO negotiations, a solution which is compatible with the WTO rules and which our trading partners might be persuaded to accept.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I just want very briefly to explain the two amendments, for they are not so much political as technical. The first amendment is the additional paragraph on terrorism. This was an oral amendment adopted unanimously in the committee, but for technical reasons it was unfortunately dropped. No amendment was therefore really needed here in the plenary sitting. Instead, it is just a question of approving the unanimous decision from the committee. The second amendment is linguistic. In English, the term labelling had been used. A better word in English would have been certification which, in translation, will obviously be clearer in the other language versions too. (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0280/2001) by Mr Bösch, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman for the year 2000 [C5-0302/2001 – 2001/2043(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0245/2001) by Mr Perry, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the European Ombudsman’s Special Report to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into the existence and the public accessibility, in the different Community institutions and bodies, of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour [C5-0438/2000 – 2000/2212(COS)] (Parliament adopted the resolution) * * * Report (A5-0240/2001) by Mrs Almeida Garrett, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on the amendment of Article 3 of the Statute of the European Ombudsman [1999/2215(ACI)] - Re Amendment No 1

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I welcome Mr Corrie’s report as a balanced assessment of the work the Assembly has carried out over the last year. The report comes just after agreement has been reached on the renewal of the existing Lomé Convention, which expires at the end of this month. The new agreement provides for a development budget of EUR 13.5 billion over the next seven years. It is vital that this money is used to benefit the poorest groups and individuals within the ACP countries. Strenuous efforts must be made to root out corruption and waste. Civil society must be involved in the planning and implementation of these projects. The decision to include a clause obliging ACP countries to take back illegal immigrants entering Europe is worrying and will have to be implemented with extreme sensitivity. I hope that before the end of this new Lomé Convention we will be able to welcome Cuba as a full member.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the situation regarding human rights in China is still very serious. The most basic of democratic and human rights are not respected. Attempts to form political opposition are met with imprisonment, horrific punishments and expulsions. There are now thousands of political prisoners in the country. When they are not controlled by the Communist party, attempts to organise independent trade unions, together with union struggles for workers’ rights, are not tolerated. It is depressing to see how a state which pretends to act in the interests of the working class oppresses that self-same working class when the latter fights for its legitimate rights. The death penalty is imposed and carried out in a frightening number of cases. Religious freedom is not respected. The persecution of supporters of the Falun Gong movement is astounding and indefensible. Many minority peoples, such as the Tibetans, are oppressed and do not only lack democratic, but also cultural rights. There is a string of documented cases of violence and other outrages committed by prison staff and police. There is therefore a very good basis for the critical resolution we are to vote through in a while. I shall naturally be voting for it. That does not mean that I think that all parts of the text are perfect. I think, for example, that part of the content of paragraph 4 should have been expressed differently. I should also like to have seen a line in the resolution about the lack of union rights in China. We see, of course, how the Chinese government has reacted against the strikes and demonstrations and attempts at union organisation which we have seen in recent times. I should also like to warn against a development which involves toning down criticism of the lack of human rights in order to achieve economic and trading advantages.

Political group: GUE-NGL