GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, on behalf of Mrs Ries, I should like to underline the importance of this resolution. Although it only deals with one case, it still reflects the issue which has a European and even international dimension. These are facts that are, unfortunately, increasingly common and which constitute a violation of the international treaties. It has a devastating effect on the life of a father or mother, of children and of an environment. Mr Limet has now been fighting for his children for more than two years. He had been given custody over his children, but they were abducted by his ex-wife and taken to Kenya. The mother of the children was recently found guilty of abduction and given a one year unconditional sentence, but despite the legal steps and mediation by both the Belgian and European political authorities, especially Mr Prodi, the chances of Mr Limet seeing his children again are as good as non-existent. A solution is therefore needed and, where this particular case is concerned, I would ask the Commission and the Council to call on the Kenyan government to ensure that justice ultimately prevails.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, anyone who does as I and a number of my colleagues in this group have done, and spends time with the fishermen on the Galician coast, will discover how urgently European aid is needed there. I think this House would do well to agree to that today and tomorrow. Arriving in Santiago de Compostela, one is aware that it marks the end of the Way of St James, with which the Commissioner will be familiar. The Way of St James is the route taken by pilgrims and sinners in order to do penance for their sins. We know that this path ought to be trudged by a whole host of Heads of State and Government, along with their Transport Ministers, in order to do penance for their sins of omission. The sin recorded against their names is that of inadequate port State control. (Applause) If you sign up to 25%, but only manage to come up with 9%, as one Member State has done, then that amounts to a great sin. The charge sheet reads: lack of a decent system of European ports of refuge. Mr Haarder, that was decided on a considerable time ago, but the Council has not yet set it up. The charge sheet reads: absolute failure when it comes to a compensation fund for oil disasters. Parliament decided on this one and a half years ago, but until today the Council has had nothing to say on the subject. Mr Haarder, the Prestige sailed past Copenhagen. Let us remind ourselves of the route it took. Coming from Latvia, it passed through the Baltic, the Skaggerak, the Channel, the Bay of Biscay and past Galicia – it could have happened anywhere. In the Baltic, though, there are four candidate countries, which keep themselves well covered when it comes to safety at sea. Malta and Cyprus were always among the flags of convenience under critical discussion. Commissioner, what we need from the Commission by April 2003 is a report deciding whether and, if so, how all these candidate countries should play their part in Europe's policy on safety at sea. The Prestige – as Mr Haarder will be aware – could also have broken up in the ‘Kadettrinne’, one of the most dangerous places in the Baltic Sea, the scene of innumerable accidents, near-accidents and ships being driven the wrong way. This is where we need to make pilots mandatory. The Council and the Commission must bring pressure to bear on Russia in order to get a general requirement for pilots introduced via the IMO. This is one of the most dangerous places in Europe for traffic at sea. If it is our intention to withdraw single-hulled tankers from circulation, then we need more double-hulled tankers. Perhaps you could have a word with your fellow-Commissioner Mr Monti about what we should do about future aid for Europe's shipyards.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, I shall not repeat what my colleague Mrs Hautala has already said. It is clear that my group and I share her point of view. I would simply like to add to what Mrs Berger said. I feel that the Commission should put forward a proposal to the European Convention to change the Treaty’s existing legal bases in the area of public health. Mrs Berger was right to stress the fact that the working group to the Convention has submitted its conclusions which attracted severe criticism in the Convention’s plenary session. I feel that we absolutely must be able to legislate in the area of public health, as the arguments put forward here regarding subsidiarity do not hold water. On the one hand, the Council and the Community institutions are preserving their powers of appreciation as to whether or not it is appropriate to legislate. On the other hand, if we look at the studies carried out by the World Health Organisation, it is evident that in order for a ban on advertising to be effective, it must be applied thoroughly and comprehensively. The solution to be followed is that of global legislation in this area. We must at least have the means to pass European legislation, without which – and I refer back to the previous debate on media concentration – what will happen is that economic players will play the national legislation card against the others. This argument also puts the case for European legislation.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice is taking place at a defining moment in our relationship with the European Union. Before the end of this decade, instead of being a major beneficiary of EU funding, we will become a net contributor to the EU budget. Fortunately, this is not having any significant impact on the attitude of Irish voters to the Treaty of Nice. Unlike the Spanish and Italian governments, Irish citizens are not being selfish about the effects of enlargement on our future share of structural and cohesion funding. Instead there is the positive recognition that we have an obligation to assist the fledgling democracies in the former communist countries. Nevertheless, they have real fears about aspects of the Treaty. They are particularly concerned that the traditional, consensual, decision-making process of the EU is being abandoned in favour of a system whereby larger Member States will exercise power at the expense of smaller countries. They are also worried that enhanced cooperation could create a first and second-class citizenship within the EU. Furthermore, the establishment of the Rapid Reaction Force under the Amsterdam Treaty has worried some people that it will bring to an end Ireland's military neutrality. I do not share these concerns, but Irish citizens need assurance in these points, not only in the context of this debate, but also with regard to long-term Irish interests within the EU. If they want to maintain Irish influence in Europe, and especially the respected reputation that we have painstakingly built up over the years, the best way of achieving this is to ratify the Treaty of Nice: to reject it is to reject enlargement and unravel the process. However, no one can afford to be complacent about the outcome of the Irish referendum. Bearing in mind that voters will be going to the polls in both Britain and Ireland next Thursday, it would be somewhat ironic, indeed tragic, if we were to witness a massive rejection of euro-scepticism in Britain while at the same time it gained significant ground in Ireland. In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to the rapporteurs, Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Seguro, for their excellent report.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs and their shadows for all their hard work in dealing with this very technical report. Although my delegation will be supporting a number of the amendments when we vote tomorrow, we will not be supporting those that reopen the debate concerning military operations. Unlike many colleagues, we consider it essential to retain the common position in this area, which now excludes the military dimension and which I understand is supported by the Commission. We will therefore oppose Amendments Nos 6 and 10 and, in addition, Amendment No 18 from the Fava report, which suggests the removal of military training from the text. Military training is not covered under the term 'military operations'. It is essential that this be excluded from the scope of the regulation. In addition, in Mrs Sanders-ten Holte's report, we also oppose Amendment No 25, due to its requirement that all air traffic in the EUIR should be known to air traffic service providers on military grounds. With regard to Amendments Nos 29 and 30, the Council's position on the flexible use of airspace, which has been practised in the UK for many years, in my view offered important benefits and greater effectiveness across Europe. On other matters, Amendment No 3 – which refers to the establishment of a reserve – is questionable on the issue of charges as this could create a provision for Member States' subsidies and would not, therefore, be a legitimate measure under Community law. Concerning Amendments Nos 24 and 31, which concern the automatic move towards a single lower airspace flight information region: placing an automatic requirement on states to put one in place within five years is, quite frankly, premature and unrealistic. With regard to Amendment No 21 on functional blocks of airspace, which proposes a centrally-planned top-to-bottom approach: I believe this overlooks local requirements.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur sincerely for having given substantial consideration to the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport. I would also like to say thank you to the Commission for emphasising the importance of education, culture and youth in building an expanding Europe. The Commission deserves full support in this. The educational exchange programmes are a success story. An even more vigorous effort will have to be made in the future to ensure that they are also within the reach of those with meagre funds. The culture industry is a growing sector, which has to be invested in. To ignore it is to forget culture’s wider importance for sustained growth and increased mutual understanding. I am pleased that the report stresses the importance of simplifying the administration of cultural and educational programmes. On the other hand, I hope that the Committee on Budgets will not then create legislation that complicates the procedure.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, what we are discussing now may seem like a dreary, formal list, but it is in actual fact incredibly important and is a crucial prerequisite in the constant battle for increased transparency in the European institutions. Transparency is the area in which Mrs Maij-Weggen manifestly excels, and I wish to congratulate her on her work. It may be observed that Parliament takes the lead when it comes to efforts to open up our institutions. Our documents and activities are openly available to the people of Europe. We are an open institution with open meetings. I believe that we are one of the world’s most transparent parliaments, both through our conscious commitment to formal decision-making and through unconventional methods such as the ‘Open Up Europe’ initiative taken by a number of liberal MEPs or the decision to put MEPs’ financial interests on the Web in accordance with the name and shame principle. Through methods such as these, transparency can be achieved. What is happening in the European Parliament can now be followed on computers from northern Finland to the Greek islands. There is, of course, a lot more to be done, however. It is also a question of ensuring that there are clear rules so that access to documents is not dependent upon discretion or the sympathetic interpretation of an application. The register is therefore an important tool for ensuring that people know what applies and how they can appeal. The document should perhaps make clear what further increased openness it is leading to. How in fact are documents from third parties or Member States or those forming part of an official correspondence to be dealt with? There is scope for interpretation in these areas. I hope that Parliament’s employees in general will interpret all applications generously and that we shall soon have reports on how many applications are rejected. Access to documents and across-the-board transparency are prerequisites for confidence in the EU’s activities. I really do hope that the Commission and the Council will have their registers in order by 3 June and that, shortly after that, we can begin the evaluation which is prescribed by Article 255 and which is to be ready in a year and a half’s time.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, one of the most enduring impressions of those who were victims of the violence in Nice, Gothenburg and Genoa is that of helplessness, especially towards the national authorities. Increasingly often, these authorities close borders indiscriminately and unlawfully, expel citizens with a clean record (as recently happened to a Swedish citizen, a member of a non-governmental organisation, who was expelled a few days ago from Belgium on no real grounds), and arrest defenceless demonstrators and subject them to unacceptable procedures, if not torture and terrible violence, as happened in Genoa. How can it be possible that there is nothing we can do? How can it be that, with all the debates we have had on rights, on respect for dissent and the freedom to demonstrate, with all the talk on the Europe of the citizens, this same Europe is unable to take any action alongside the national courts? The merit of the Watson report is precisely that it shows the way for Europe to stop being mute. The open statement that Schengen has often been violated and that this must not happen again; the threat to the freedom of the individual from secret, illegally compiled blacklists; the need to penalise, not least through international instruments, the disproportionate use of force by police forces; the ban on discrimination between European citizens: all this, which is contained in the Watson report, is the plan of work for this Parliament, which, unlike the other parliaments in the Member States, manages to find a spirit of true unity on these matters. I hope it is also the Commission’s agenda, and I hope that this plan of work will succeed in preventing the horrors we have seen in Nice, Gothenburg and Genoa, and will be an important contribution to all the measures being taken against terrorism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, the Danish Presidency is indeed to be congratulated on its skilful handling of the negotiations which resulted in a successful outcome to the two-day summit in Brussels. Agreement on the financial aspects of enlargement has removed the last major obstacle which stood in the way of concluding the accession negotiations with ten countries at the December Copenhagen Council. I welcome the fact that in relation to the sensitive area of the future financing of the common agricultural policy that EU leaders agreed that direct payments to farmers in current EU Member States would remain stable until 2006. This will guarantee the continuing goodwill of current EU farmers towards enlargement. If this is to be maintained, it is important that degressivity is not introduced after 2006. On a related issue, it is important to note that some concerns had been expressed that the applicant countries would have been able to export food products which were not up to current EU food safety standards. I should add that these concerns were not necessarily motivated by opposition to enlargement. They were rather more influenced by a wish to prevent any repetition of the BSE and foot and mouth disasters. I am therefore pleased that one of the important declarations at the Summit confirmed that there would be a safeguard clause on food safety included in each of the accession treaties. Under it, if a candidate country does not meet EU safety standards, it will not be allowed to sell food products in the internal market. As well as reassuring consumers, it will also remove another weapon from the armoury of those who have reservations about enlargement going ahead as quickly as possible. I would like to conclude by not only congratulating the Danish Presidency once again and welcoming the fact that its confidence proved to be right, but also by wishing it a similar success at the Copenhagen Council.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I respect what you say about not engaging in the debate and I will not seek to do so. But I wonder if you could give an undertaking to reply to the letter that I and a number of other Members specifically wrote to you personally on the issue of disability access. If we were to receive that reply in advance of Friday, it would help the issue enormously.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have to say that I greatly appreciated the Commission's initiative to combine all the provisions on highly migratory species in a single text, although I agree with Mr Piétrasanta that it would have been preferable to wait for the end of the autumn series of fisheries meetings so as to be able to incorporate the decisions taken at the meetings in the regulation. With regard to the species described as highly migratory, the total catches have increased significantly. Indeed, in 1997, 3.5 million tonnes of highly migratory fish were caught in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. As we are quite aware, the European Union is an active participant in these activities of fishing the world's oceans. Recently, a number of regional organisations have sprung up which aim to regulate the fishing of these species. These organisations adopt recommendations which provide, amongst other things, for limits to the capacity of some fleets, time and area closures and technical measures on size and weight. If no objections are raised, the recommendations become binding upon the contracting parties. I would, moreover, add that the regional organisations continue to adopt effective measures to resolve various types of problems, such as those listed above, but it will certainly be difficult for them to resolve a thorny problem which is common to all the areas such as the elimination of fishing by vessels flying flags of convenience. Hence the need for a joint action of cooperation between the regional fisheries organisations and the national governments, in order to prevent shipowners, who feel overburdened by the regulations in force, from deciding to fly a different flag. In conclusion, may I draw your attention to and emphasise the fundamental role played by the regional fisheries organisations in this matter where, given the huge scope of the subject and the specific local situations, it would be difficult for the Community institutions to respond adequately to the different requirements, as the regional fisheries organisations are able to do.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I also took part in the visit to Iran. I am thankful that Iran is seeking dialogue and cooperation. It has made us Europeans an offer, which came from the Supreme National Security Council, for the creation of a joint commission to engage in a bilateral Euro-Iranian dialogue centred on the fight against drugs. At the present time, Iran has about two million drug addicts, along with some eight million occasional drug users. These are very high numbers in a country with a population of 60 million. The bulk of drugs leaving the region currently goes to America, but we can expect Europe to be targeted soon for a massive wave of drug smuggling. This is why I am particularly grateful that the head of the Supreme National Security Council has made an offer to the European Union to work with him and his organisation to stop this flow of drugs from the war lords in Afghanistan. The second offer, for another bilateral commission which would engage in a joint effort to combat terrorism, is one which, in my view, we should not refuse, likewise the offer made by the judiciary to cooperate with the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg in order to accelerate the training of Iranian judges in this field as well as simply to show them the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. This should be put at the heart of our bilateral relations. Similarly, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the promotion of cooperation between small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran and those in the European Union, is a means of strengthening democracy. I believe that the business contacts in this domain could point the way to more fruitful cooperation in the domain of dialogue and democracy. Another point of particular importance to Europe, of course, is partnership in the domain of energy. Security of energy supplies is the issue of the future. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Swiebel has done good work in her survey of human rights breaches in Member States and I am sad that the and Conservatives are so opposed to it. Mr Cornillet was himself a distinguished previous rapporteur. Human rights issues are intensely political but it is a pity when they become the subject of partisan divisions. I hope we can get back to working together on the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, because the years ahead will see intensified challenges to, and dilemmas regarding, fundamental rights and we have to be even more systematic in our work. Briefly, I just want to mention and explain why the is seeking to remove the wording in paragraphs 83 and 84 which urges the Member States and the EU to ensure marriage is open to same-sex couples. We are certainly not opposed to this in principle, but this really is a matter for national decision, as in the Netherlands. Introducing the marriage issue distracts from the real priority, to which Liberals are absolutely committed, which is to give legal recognition to same-sex and unmarried partnerships: that really is a matter of fundamental rights.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, Mrs Reding, for being here today. We are, of course, all pleased that a compromise has finally been reached, and I have, in fact, always agreed with you that the Commission clearly does not want to destroy football. I got a few bloody noses at home for supporting you to such an extent, but by now I think that even the rather rude Mr Beckenbauer will have recognised that you are not trying to destroy his beloved football. That is why I am pleased about the compromise, but I would like to ask you one thing now. Putting to one side for the time being those who for a wide variety of reasons will gain from this compromise – young sportsmen and women, small sports clubs, large sports clubs – are you not worried that this compromise, which treats sportsmen and women up to the age of 28 differently from those older than that, could lead to a violation of the principle of equality? Are you not worried that in the end there will be even more Bosman judgments, by which I mean that courts exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction may take a different view to that represented by this compromise? Are you not concerned that this could lead to us being buried in a veritable avalanche of court cases?

Political group: PPE-DE