GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, the presentation by the Council of a first EU annual report on human rights was a welcome contribution to the on-going debate. In particular I welcome the information it contains regarding the EU-China human rights dialogue. While this dialogue can and does play a role in the transformation of human rights issues in China, it will only bear fruit if the European Union speaks and acts as one. Too often in the past EU Member States have allowed themselves to be blackmailed by China. At previous sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, when some Member States were raising China's appalling human rights record, they were picked off one by one because of threatened trade sanctions by China. Capitulating to China was both immoral and cowardly. It was immoral to extend greater priority to the importance of trade interests over human rights and is in marked contrast to our approach in relation to the bilateral trade agreements we have with developing countries. It was cowardly also. History has consistently shown that the correct approach is to stand up to a bully. Attempts to compromise are always interpreted as weakness by bullies, and China is such a bully. We see this in its response to legitimate international concerns about its human rights record. It treats the views of the outside world with contempt. We witnessed it again at last week's conference of the National People's Congress in Beijing. Its warmongering tone in relation to Taiwan is unacceptable and is a direct interference in Taiwan's presidential election. Its arrogance in relation to its treatment of Falun Gong practitioners and dissidents also cannot be tolerated. In Geneva, and elsewhere, the EU should take every opportunity in a united way to express its displeasure. While I strongly support China's admission to the WTO, we should give China a dose of its own medicine. We should use these negotiations as a means of leverage to ensure that China not only listens to EU concerns about its continued abuse of human rights but that it also takes action to improve its record.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the report and the accompanying explanations are based on a damning conclusion. For twenty years, statutory health cover for the people of Europe has been in constant decline while the share of health costs they have had to pay has continually increased. Increasing numbers of people are witnessing a drastic reduction in their standard of living through badly paid jobs, unemployment, job insecurity and exclusion. They no longer have the means to take care of themselves properly, or indeed to gain access to the most basic forms of healthcare. Faced with this intolerable situation, the report envisages nothing but recourse to private or mutualist supplementary health insurance schemes, which it claims to be the solution to the problem. But exactly whom does this solution benefit? Certainly not those who will have to pay even more for their care, even though society denies them the means to pay. This is, first and foremost, a solution that benefits the private insurers to whom the Member States have handed the healthcare market on a plate. This report and its accompanying amendments would like to impose rules to prevent forms of selection, based on criteria of health or handicap, on sharks such as the insurance company, Axa, which has multiplied the contributions paid by parents of mentally handicapped children by a factor of ten. Imposing such rules is the very minimum necessary and we will vote in favour, but we have no intention of accepting the fact that this proposal releases Member States from their duty to carry out a literally crucial task in terms of a public health service. Whilst medicine has made tremendous progress, empty phrases about providing access to quality health care for all are nothing but hot air. Lack of investment by Member States and growing health privatisation can only result in selection by money, growing inequality with implications ... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the EU is the key donor to the Palestinian territories. According to the UN, since the closures, more than one million Palestinians have been living under the poverty line of two dollars a day. The human effect of the closures is possibly even worse. Commissioner Patten stated it a moment ago: sick people cannot even get to the European hospital in Gaza because even ambulances cannot get through the barricades. It is therefore of key importance that we continue providing aid. I am delighted that the Council and Commission share our view. I returned from the Palestinian territories last Sunday together with a delegation from Parliament. We are all agreed on one thing: it is important to give money, but we are not giving enough. The Union must also assume its political responsibility. It is only managing to play a valuable role in the peace process in very small steps. That is due not least to the dissension within the Union. I would therefore like to hear from Mr Solana what he intends to do in order to bring the Union to sing from the same songsheet. Once detailed maps of Jerusalem are available, as well as plans for the settlements, and a scheme for the return of and compensation for refugees, I wonder whether the Union will have the in-house expertise it takes to adopt an intelligent position of its own, or will we leave this to the Americans? We must make sure this discussion does not become black and white. By maintaining a certain degree of neutrality, Europe could, in fact, make a valuable contribution. Both sides of this conflict are violating agreements. We must call them both to task about this. Killing people is unacceptable under any circumstances, whether this is in the form of executions carried out by the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli army’s assassination policy. But, Mr Danielsson, Europe will lay itself open to the criticism that it is applying double standards if it takes four and a half months to call the Israelis to account, whilst this is done promptly in the case of Palestinians. This Parliament too, with its secondary delegations, one for Israel and one for the Palestinian territories, is running the risk of sending out the wrong message. We must now work on unanimity and understanding of the legitimate concerns on both sides.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wish to concur with what has been said by many of the previous speakers. I should also like to thank the Commissioner for what he has said. I do notice, however, that, although he is introducing a large number of measures, he fails to mention the best piece of news, namely that it was the farmers who discovered that something was wrong with their pigs, because their sows were not breeding properly. It is down to the farmers. This means, then, that there is a very important lesson we should draw from this, and that we should be aware that the inspection system, however effectively it has been set up, has failed thus far. With all these fine measures that are now being proposed, I have one overriding question, and I believe that Mrs Roth-Behrendt has already mentioned it as well. How does waste legislation relate to what we do with our cattle feed? Who monitors this? Commissioner, if you say that, according to Commissioner Wallström, if waste legislation had been enforced, we would not be facing any problems now, then I think you should ask the Irish authorities why they did not verify that these hormones landed up in a waste processor in an improper manner. Why did they subsequently not check at the border that these hormones were being exported to a company which should raise question marks, at any rate in Belgium? This means, therefore, that in this respect, the Irish and the Belgians have dropped major clangers. Mr President, why – and I am also speaking on behalf of my own country – did we fail to check these companies when we know that, in addition to manure, they also produce their own feed and that they are already shrouded in great suspicion? What about product liability legislation? I hope that those who lost out will be receiving compensation from the governments responsible.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on a point of order, two Members have raised the question of comments attributed to you in both Irish and Danish newspapers. You said that those comments were not correct. You advised us to contact the sub-editor of the Irish newspaper concerned. It is my experience that the Independent Newspaper Group, in which these comments appeared, does not accept clarifications or corrections from those of us who do not agree with its political line. Therefore, Mr President, could you contact the editors concerned in the Independent Newspaper Group and ask them to carry a correction of the remarks you made? (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I would like to go back to Mr Berlusconi’s statements, not least because it is an issue which extends beyond Italian concern, as is indicated by the reactions of all the Heads of State and Government to these statements. I have to say, Madam President, that we Italians – or at least the majority of the Italians sitting in this House – are particularly concerned by Mr Berlucsoni’s statements because these statements, in addition to being in blatant conflict with the conclusions of the Brussels European Council, subscribed to by Mr Berlusconi himself, moreover, reflect the attitude – which I hope has ceased to prevail – of part of the majority supporting the Italian government. In matters such as these which, regrettably, can carry such weight as to tip the balance towards war or peace, exploitation for political ends is unacceptable; however, equally unacceptable are superficial expressions which, I am sad to say, appear to mask attitudes of intolerance which must be opposed. Without wishing to exacerbate the issue, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, after 11 September, a major government coalition party held public demonstrations with boards saying ‘Immigrants = terrorists’, and that, in recent days, two mayors of cities in Northern Italy from the same party have ordered the closure of the premises used as mosques. That, Madam President, is why we will feel more reassured if you too, as President of this Parliament, particularly following Mr Santini’s words, were to confirm a clear message of open dialogue, such as Parliament has already had occasion to send to the Muslim Arab communities and countries with which we intend to work to combat terrorism, together, openly and resolutely.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wanted to briefly draw your attention to the admission procedure for visitors in Brussels. I can inform you that, when we receive visitors in Brussels at the moment, they are admitted and then required to identify themselves. Subsequently, however, their identity cards are collected at reception. I must admit, I find this rather an odd procedure. Why should someone who comes to visit us, one of our citizens, hand over their identity cards? The cards are then thrown into a box and when they want to leave the Parliament building, they have to wait for fifteen minutes before they get their identity cards back. I would like to ask you what the reason is behind this procedure. If someone has identified themselves, surely that is sufficient? Surely there is then no need to seize their identity cards or driving licences? I would like to ask you, Mr President, to change the admission procedure in Brussels back to how it used to be: you identify yourself, a badge is made and you are admitted.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, transport by sea is undoubtedly one of the least environmentally damaging modes of transport. This is demonstrated by the fact that the measures adopted at international level to improve safety and reduce accidental pollution have certainly had some success. Nevertheless, we still unfortunately witness serious incidents, such as the recent sinking of the Erika, which show how urgent it is to adopt new measures to promote marine safety and to avoid any repetition of incidents that have such major ecological and economic repercussions on our coastlines, our seas, fisheries and tourism. With regard to these three new proposals on maritime safety, I can only congratulate the three rapporteurs, who in a very short time have shown how determined our Parliament is to adopt new measures to enhance safety at sea, controls and construction standards, and that it is no longer tolerable that similar incidents should occur again. I believe it is our duty to strengthen the enforcement of existing directives on these matters and to adopt new measures designed to clear our seas of sub-standard vessels, real sea-going old rust buckets. In addition to adopting this package of measures, the European Union should, in my view, act in a worldwide context, identifying solutions agreed at international level that will improve maritime safety and at the same time not penalise our shipowners in comparison with others. In conclusion, I would highlight the need to set up an information exchange system among the Member States on navigation safety in areas with heavy tanker traffic, so as to ensure constant monitoring and an immediate reaction to any hazards. IN THE CHAIR: MRS FONTAINEPresident

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want first to express my thanks for the exciting, inspiring and business-like work in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. It has been a delight to participate in the work on the framework programme. I also want to thank Commissioner Busquin for the way in which he began the discussion with new ideas about the European Research Area. I have seen how the ideas floated by the Commissioner have taken root in the countries of the EU and created a new dynamic of a kind we had not known before and which I would to a large extent ascribe to the Commissioner’s initiative. I am very pleased about the opportunities under the framework programme also to involve countries which do not directly receive aid from the European Union, for example, even Iran and Taiwan can participate, to cite two extremes, if the countries themselves pay and if we find that they add value to the programmes. That means exchanges involving young people in areas that are important for the future. It provides the opportunity for new creativity and new understanding within research, something that will be very valuable, especially in the world of today. With regard to nuclear research, I believe that Europe should promote this in areas which can contribute to our actively participating in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, weapons grade plutonium, etc. We have facilities. We have knowledge that can be made use of. The international mood today is such that there is now a possibility of having these things destroyed. Let us make sure that they are destroyed, and allow Europe to take part in their destruction. Finally, I hope that the Commissioner, together with his Director-General, will take the lead when it comes to the simplification that is necessary if small and medium-sized companies, together with university departments, are happily able to participate in the programme without experiencing financial difficulties. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I felt obliged to vote for the motion of censure because of the Commission's incompetence and lack of financial control as manifested in the whole Eurostat affair. It is indeed bizarre that the only person detained in connection with this sorry episode is the journalist who exposed it. I also took the opportunity to register my disapproval of the way the Commission has deliberately ignored the will of this House with regard to aid for hospitals in Belarus, which are woefully ill-equipped to treat the cancers – particularly in children – which have occurred as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster. Two years running we voted to allocate resources from underspent budget lines to buy this much-needed equipment. So far not one penny has arrived. My constituents in Scarborough and Whitby and I are appalled that money languishes in accounts in Brussels when children are dying of diseases that could be treated.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, BSE is the biggest tragedy ever to hit European veterinary, an unparalleled tragedy which will claim an unknown number of victims. BSE is a nightmare for the consumers who desperately question the safety of their food, and BSE has dealt cattle farming an enormous blow. Today, we are discussing a package of measures which was announced back in 1997. This is therefore the appropriate time to thank rapporteur Mrs Roth-Behrendt: her perseverance, her expertise in this field were essential, and without her thoroughness, the Union would not be where it is today. Thanks to Parliament’s input at first reading, the common position is, on the whole, acceptable: systematic test programmes, which will also apply to sheep in due course; strict and clear rules with regard to specific risk material; effective inspections especially on imports; and market access legislation. All of this is of crucial importance. Today, we have to express our trust in the common position. This is the policy by means of which we can fight BSE. The measures must also be able to count on the commitment in Brussels and in the Member States. That is a deciding factor. After the increase in the number of BSE cases in France, fresh measures have repeatedly been put in place in recent months, and it was remarkable in this respect that Commissioner Byrne himself stated that food safety as such does not require new measures, but that the measures were particularly necessary to restore consumer confidence. With this statement, he was, in fact, vague once again. Measures are needed and are no luxury. Let there be no mistake about this. Food safety is a very emotional topic and as such, food politics is now partly about the management of emotions. Statistically, we can say that food has never been so safe, but that does not convince anybody. You cannot restore confidence just like that, not even by encouraging organic farming, or by discouraging large-scale, industrial production methods. Confidence can be restored by means of a credible policy and clear language. Safety, prevention, control and eradication of BSE now require political commitment. The BSE crisis was much more than a very serious food problem; BSE ended up being a political crisis as well. It stands for passing the blame and dodging responsibility. In this way, BSE became the cause of a complete overhaul of European food policy. A European food authority is set up and we re-establish the principles of policy on foodstuffs. But our discussion goes further than that, of course. We must now take a good look at food production. We want a green revolution, we want quality rather than quantity, our agricultural policy can no longer damage the environment, we must move away from protectionism which disadvantages third-world countries, and we must take animal welfare seriously. And we should not wait six years to achieve this. Today, we must express our commitment to the BSE policy, and that is, in my view, the go-ahead for a green revolution and for a policy that is based on quality.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there are two extremely sensitive issues of concern to the public of the Arab countries, including what are known as the moderate Arab countries, and they are the Palestinian issue and the impact of the embargo on Iraq. It is the international community, not the dictator, which will be blamed for the impact of the embargo on Iraq, we must be quite clear about that. I do not feel there is any division here, as has already been said, as regards condemnation of Saddam Hussein and his regime. However, the repeated announcements of unilateral action by the United States – which were not the invention of the international press but have been repeated on several occasions by the President himself – are having two, extremely negative consequences: on the one hand, the interests and fate of the dictator are becoming linked to those of his people once again – you saw, even yesterday, Saddam Hussein’s declarations, 'we will resist, we will win' – and, on the other, there is a build up of opposition to this action. I therefore believe that the European Union must pursue the path of international law, the path of the United Nations, resolutely, and that a much, much clearer link must be established between the readmission of the UNSCOM and the end of the embargo on the Iraqi people, for this will enable us to start to dialogue with the people of Iraq. Otherwise it will be extremely difficult to make any impact on Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the West’s task is hardly to replace Saddam with an ayatollah, for example. We must introduce democracy into this and other Arab countries, and I believe that, if Europe genuinely believes in this position and is united, then it will be able to make a contribution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we are once again debating the difficult situation in which Burma’s elected President finds herself, as well as the aggression displayed by that country’s military regime. I believe that over the past two years, we have submitted as many as five or six resolutions on the situation in Burma. It is almost intolerable that a President, elected more than ten years ago with 80% of the votes behind her, who offers peaceful protest against her country’s military regime, should receive insufficient support to truly adopt the role which she deserves in her country, in order to fight a military regime which rides roughshod over human rights and the rights of minorities. This is despite the fact that she receives verbal support – by Mr Clinton only a few days ago –and the fact that she has received both the Nobel Prize and Sakharov Prize for her peaceful protest. The national economy stays afloat thanks to drugs. Burma, the world’s second-largest drug-producing country, after Colombia, has dismantled its own parliament, has had numerous parliamentarians killed and imprisoned in the process, and forces its minorities into slave labour, especially in the construction of infrastructure. However, it still benefits from investments, including investments from European countries, such as those of the French oil company Total and the Dutch hydraulics industry, and there has been no attempt to block this kind of investment, either on the part of the EU or on the part of national Member States. I am not actually in favour of economic sanctions, but in some cases – I am thinking of South Africa and Chile in the eighties – it is necessary to stop cruelty in its tracks. In my opinion, the European Union and the United States should agree on a strategy against Burma. I believe that Burma should be isolated politically and economically and that real, effective pressure must be exercised; if not, we sanction violent opposition. People elsewhere have commented: look at Mrs Aung San Suu Kyi. She has now been in peaceful protest for twelve years and still she is being sidelined and placed under house arrest, and her people are being arrested. And what happens? The international community looks on and does nothing. I would ask the European Union to enter into talks with the United States in order come up with concrete ways of helping her, and in order to ensure that she and Burma’s parliament can re-establish democracy in Burma.

Political group: PPE-DE