GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, I have listened most attentively to your statement on air safety in a context that is particularly difficult for France after the Sharm el-Sheikh disaster and I have heard your concerns. On my own behalf and on behalf of the members of the French delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party , I want to express our most sincere condolences and our solidarity with the victims’ families. Since it has not yet been possible to analyse the aircraft’s black boxes, it would be irresponsible to draw premature conclusions about this tragedy. For the present, there is nothing tangible that would allow us to call into question either the condition of the aircraft, the professionalism of the Egyptian charter company Flash Airlines, the earnestness of the Egyptian civil aviation authority or the reliability of the technical controls that were carried out on that aircraft. From what we know at present, even the hypothesis of an attack cannot be ruled out completely, even if it seems highly unlikely. However, it seems to me essential that European users of air transport should be given every guarantee to reassure them. I would like to take advantage of this session, Commissioner, to pass on to you some of the most frequent questions concerning charter airlines in particular. Would it not be possible to require European tour operators to inform tourists who use their services of the precise identity of the airline they will be travelling with at the time they buy their tickets? In order for European tour operators to be better assured of the level of safety of the airlines they work with, would it not also be desirable to go beyond the random checks that are currently made? Would it not be advisable to recommend real in-depth technical audits of airlines that are not European but which are used by our tour operators?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I do not know if this is a technical correction, but I have just discovered that I am not included in the Members from Luxembourg in Wednesday’s Minutes, concerning Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi’s report on the verification of credentials. Mrs Reding’s name is there instead. I know that I owe my seat to her being appointed a Commissioner but I do not understand, since I have been a Member of this Parliament since 16 September, why my name does not feature in the Minutes covering the verification of credentials. Would you please rectify this?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would also like to welcome this report and the new directive. The passing on of contaminated blood can and does have fatal consequences and I welcome strongly the proposals to regulate the transportation of blood and to ensure supervision by qualified staff, which represent an important step forward in this directive. I would like to thank medical staff at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge and at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, both of which are in my constituency, who have given me help and advice so that I could contribute to this directive. They want to convey the importance not only of qualified staff to supervise the process but also of training for all those who handle blood, because human error is the biggest source of accident in this respect. Finally, the voluntary donation of blood – which is an important principle for us in Britain in particular – has the added benefit of ensuring the highest possible voluntary screening-out of the health risk associated with blood transfusion. We should be thanking and congratulating all those millions of people in Britain and throughout Europe who give blood. We should also appeal to the 94% of people who do not give blood to do so in future.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, yes, Mrs Palacio, you are absolutely right – what we need is dialogue. Yes, we must increase the financial support, and yes, we oppose cartels and monopolies. That is all quite true. But reducing taxation and other things – which, funnily enough, is what certain Members to my left have suggested – is no way to solve the problem. That would lead nowhere. OPEC and the oil producing countries will immediately move in to close this gap. They have a political and economic hold over us. What chance do we stand against this? (Heckling from Mr Jarzembowski) Have we reduced our consumption? No. Mr Jarzembowski, who has just spoken – he can shout loudly, and so can I as it happens – says that there must be a paradigm shift where traffic is concerned. There is more road transport than there was ten years ago. It is high time this was changed. We need a paradigm shift where transport is concerned. There needs to be more transport via rail and water – let us make it happen. We need to be less dependent. Let us pursue a common energy policy, for example. You, Mrs Palacio, and we MEPs, should call for a common energy policy to be incorporated into the Treaty. We are still lacking such a policy. So who is guilty of blocking it to date? For example, what we need to do, Mrs Palacio, is to get rid of the link between gas and oil prices. You could do that in tandem with the Commission. Why are gas prices linked to oil prices? There is no reason why they should be. You are the obvious person to bring this about. We can do all of these things. There are many things we can do, which the Member States have failed to do so far. We can use these opportunities. Unfortunately, I am speaking too fast for the interpreter, and I apologise for this. Right now, there must be no falling out between groups on the right, and those on the left or in the centre, above or below. The OPEC States will watch from the sidelines, smile indulgently, and put the prices up. (Heckling from Mr Jarzembowski) We must show a united front, and the same goes for the Ministers meeting in the Transport Council – and you, Mr Jarzembowski, would do well to shout less loudly and at last get round to doing something in your transport committee.

Political group: PSE
I warmly thank Commissioner Fischler for that very direct answer. It is extremely important that this allegation of abuse of dominant position should be investigated. A particular concern is that the breeders of juvenile fish, or smolt, are mainly based in Scotland and Ireland and are dependent entirely on sales to the ongrowers who are in turn affected by the feed manufacturers. The feed manufacturers and the ongrowing concerns are heavily dominated by Norwegian interests and that is where the abuse of dominant position within the market arises. One particular risk that it gives rise to is that a particular asset currently in the hands of EU-owned salmon breeders is the genetic data and genotyped brood stock, which is of fundamental importance, as I am sure the Commissioner well realises. In conducting his further investigation, with which I will be very happy to cooperate as much as I can, will he take a particularly close and concerned look at that aspect of the situation?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, it is evident from the evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that we need to make drastic changes to the job responsibilities. The Monitoring Centre must start functioning better, but it must also be managed effectively. If we are to be well-equipped in the fight against the drugs problem, then it is absolutely essential to extend competences and step up cooperation with candidate countries. The rapporteur has done some sterling work, for which I thank him. I support the amendments. There are two comments I would like to make. My first point concerns the gathering of data, which is still a weak aspect. How can we monitor the accuracy of the data? What guarantee is there that the Member States will give their full cooperation? It transpired recently in my own country, for example, that the judicial authorities had estimated there to be 50% fewer so-called coffee shops than is actually the case. How, I find myself wondering, can you take a pro-active stance against drugs on the basis of this kind of information? Would cooperation with Europol – something Mrs Banotti has already touched on – offer a solution here? A second point, Mr President, which I would like to draw your attention to, is that of synthetic drugs. Apparently harmless, but all the more dangerous for that reason, than any other drugs. My country, the Netherlands, has the dubious honour of being the largest manufacturer and exporter of these drugs. I am aware that an ever-increasing number of these designer drugs are now emanating from Eastern Europe and Turkey as well. Therefore I am calling for us to step up cooperation with Eastern Europe, with the candidate countries, in this respect too, and to make the fight against these drugs the new spearhead of the European anti-drugs policy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank not only the Commission and you, Commissioner Vitorino, for the even-handed presentation on long-term residence by third-country nationals, but also Baroness Ludford, the rapporteur, for the close cooperation. What is important to me is the amendments to this directive making it possible for the Member States to carry out security checks. Not only the host country, but the whole European Union, benefits from this, as Schengen makes it possible to cross the internal frontiers at any time, and so the other Member States must be able to rely on the first host country to receive third-country nationals in a responsible manner. Checks of this kind take account of the security needs of the host population, and also the needs of the third-country nationals living in our Member States. They are, on the one hand, protected against acts of terrorism, whilst, on the other hand, the state in question is making it clear that the third-country nationals living among us do not represent any danger to internal security. By this means we can give a clear rebuff to those forces that are endeavouring to make xenophobic capital out of acts of terrorism. Something that is also important is the possibility of making integration a criterion for the grant of a residence permit. As a rule, third-country nationals with long-term rights of abode want to be naturalised, to become part of society, and to be able to make themselves understood. For communication leads to understanding, and those who understand each other grow closer together. We must, then, put down markers. We must require language learning and promote it, for deficient knowledge of the language means a lack of communication and virtually inevitable exclusion from many areas of life. If our immigrants are not to remain set apart from society, we must promote language learning, or else the new citizen is on a foreordained path to low-paid work. To require it is primarily to give an opportunity and not to set up an obstacle; no doubt we all agree that we want to give a fair chance to the people who come to make their home among us.

Political group: PPE-DE
I have voted against the report. In my view, there is no legal basis insofar as the EU is not entitled to legislate within the area of public health. It is national legislation that should deal with issues of food supplements, not the European Union. Nor has the EU taken any initiatives to regulate legislation within areas in which very serious abuse takes place, for example those of alcohol and drugs. The fact that an attempt is now being made to do so within the field of health foods – something that would have consequences for people’s self-medication by means of vitamin supplements – raises a number of fundamental issues. In whose interests is this to be done? Why should it be done specifically within this area? How would it affect the individual citizen? Which manufacturers would suffer, and which benefit? These questions demand answers, and no satisfactory answers have been given. - Report Paulsen (A5-0043/2002)

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, Commissioner, the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is extremely concerned about the planned change to Article 23 of Hong Kong’s constitution. In conversation, journalists, politicians, various religious groups, representatives of human rights organisations and organisations such as Falun Gong all express great anxiety faced with this planned change. The strength of Hong Kong lies in its success in retaining the principle of one country, two systems. I, together with many others, fear that this change will seriously undermine that principle, something which would naturally be completely unacceptable. The fact that China is pressing for this change to take place is not reassuring. We know that China often puts pressure on Hong Kong to get it to accept legislation there that exists in China. I am afraid that the way in which Article 23 is being interpreted may lead to the disappearance of fundamental freedoms such as academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of organisation and religious freedom. If a group such as Falun Gong, which is banned in China, were also to be banned in Hong Kong, it would be a serious offence against the principle of one country, two systems. It is not only I who am concerned. The major demonstration at the weekend, in which thousands of Hong Kong citizens protested about the change, shows that the Hong Kong authorities have not succeeded in reassuring their own citizens, and they are not therefore reassuring ourselves, either. If the change is only a technical one, as Hong Kong maintains, the point needs to be made extremely clearly. I am afraid that that is not the way it is. I hope that the Commission will look into this issue very carefully. I also wish to appeal to the Hong Kong authorities to extend the period of referral for consideration and to be extremely vigilant where these changes are concerned.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wholeheartedly support this motion for a resolution which will act as a considerable deterrent to racist offenders. By making it easier to prosecute people for racist offences, religious and racist intolerance could be significantly diminished. Indeed, by increasing the scope of what constitutes racist behaviour, to include actions that may be deemed threatening, abusive or insulting, this resolution represents a consolidation of the principles of freedom and human rights, principles upon which the EU and its Member States are founded. - Seville European Council (B5-0380/2002)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there was a lot of animated discussion in our group about the position Commissioner Verheugen has adopted, and our main conclusion was that transparency, more than anything, is now required in the negotiations on enlargement. Our citizens need it and so does Parliament. It seems to me that Mr Poettering’s proposal would serve the purpose well if we were now to create a little transparency, for it is just as Commissioner Patten says: enlargement must not be allowed to be merely an issue for the elite. I can well understand why Commissioner Verheugen is somewhat vexed by the fact that candidate countries are being toured in the name of the Council and the various Member States and being promised that they can definitely join our club one year or the other. Perhaps we can also talk a little about what part the Commission, the Council and Parliament should have in the talks that are now going on.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the common position on the chocolate directive is about a directive – and I quote the chocolate industry lobby verbatim for the occasion – which creates a truly unified market for chocolate products whilst upholding the national chocolate traditions. The directive also offers comprehensive information to the consumer and safeguards the interests of the developing countries. But is this actually true? I will start with the information for the consumer. The Commission has freely admitted that there is no foolproof detection method. The margin of error is 2%. At 5%, this is even 50% more. This seems to be unacceptable to me. Furthermore, inspection depends on the type of chocolate and the information which the producer wishes to provide. We are not taking ourselves and the consumer, in particular, seriously if we introduce a directive which we cannot monitor adequately. I would now like to comment on the third-world interests. It concerns me greatly that both those for and against the common position keep bringing up the same arguments. Those “for” claim that the common position will benefit the third-world counties while those “against” say that more than 1 million farmers in western Africa stand to suffer from it as a result. Which is it and which will it be? Is it really asking too much to want to check what the effects of this directive will be on, for example, export and the sustainable development of cocoa-producing countries? Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I really need to get something else off my chest. Rightly or wrongly, it is said that this Parliament should not accept any amendments at the risk of jeopardising this delicate compromise. Well, if that is the case and if that is an argument, I suggest we pack our bags and go home now. Each common position always strikes a delicate balance between national interests, environmental conditions and social considerations. The European Parliament must have its input in this dossier and ensure that the common position is amended on a number of points and becomes a directive which benefits the consumer and the third world alike.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the proposal for a regulation under discussion does not aim to address the problems, as the Commission hypocritically claims, but to cover up the problems which have arisen in certain countries, thereby generalising them and making them everybody’s problem. This is why this proposal needs to be changed, particularly where it specifies classifying countries into categories. If the Commission really wanted to protect public health from spongiform encephalopathies, it would have proposed rules to prevent such risks a long time ago, but it did not. It would have made provision for the necessary procedures and penalties. But the interests of multinational food corporations, which have subjugated everything to the rationale of excessive profit, precluded any such action. So, this Commission initiative only made its appearance once the situation had got out of control – with dioxin for example – and is now endeavouring to show that it has some control over the situation. The conclusion which we draw from this draft regulation is that it is probably an attempt to cover up the situation. That is the direction in which things are heading with the classification of countries, which, rather than taking into account the most basic factor, which is the existence or non-existence of cases of encephalopathy in their raised cattle, takes account of other factors when allocating countries to a particular category. The worst thing about this is that, theoretically, if a member state in which cases of encephalopathy have been reported can prove that it has established systems for monitoring production, it could be placed in the same category as a country in which no cases have ever been reported. This same spirit, this “lowest common denominator” approach, pervades the rest of the proposed measures, such as the mandatory removal of various organs (spleen, brain, spinal cord, etc.). Such measures will blacken the reputation of meat-producing countries in which there have been no cases of encephalopathy and will also discredit sheepmeat and goatmeat, since there is no substantial scientific evidence as to whether this meat is sensitive to spongiform encephalopathy pathogens. At the same time, the proposal to remove the aforementioned organs and tissues is a recipe for disaster for sheep- and goatmeat, which will be impossible to market; in other words, this measure will indirectly oust sheep and goat meat from the market, demand will be met by other types of meat from larger animals and traditional recipes using offal such as intestines and spleen will be banned. We therefore oppose the Commission proposal.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, 2003 was an exceptionally gloomy year for international human rights. The year began for me in South Africa, where I was working for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which had been investigating the legacy of apartheid, and I would not want to see inequality, racism or discrimination on anything like the same scale ever again anywhere. We are now, however – real or imagined terrorism having become a factor in any analysis of the world order – in real danger of sliding towards global apartheid. As we happily swear by the notion of multilateral security based on cooperation, the European Union, as a Community of values and in its human rights work, which has a key impact on security, has been a disappointment in terms of practical work in this area. Amnesty International published a report this week called Human Rights begin at Home, in which EU human rights policy came in for some heavy criticism. Amnesty complains, for example, that the governments of the Union’s Member States often do not even take the trouble to reply when it contacts them. We, too, however, have experienced the same sort of frustration in relations between the European Parliament and the Council. Major violators of human rights, such as China and Russia, just get away with it year after year. Parliament’s expressions of concern have in these cases, as in many others, come to nothing on account of the passive attitude of Member States, differences of opinion between them, and the commercial and other sordid interests they have lurking in the background. Good intentions, both in the thematic and geographical sense, therefore often remain inexcusably empty, futile gestures. What is needed is muscle and effect: I refer here for example to statements on human rights and democracy. The country holding the presidency, Italy, at any rate chose children’s rights as its theme for its human rights forum. With respect to these, one nevertheless fears that the guidelines for children and armed conflicts agreed in December will not be effectively implemented, as was the case with the action programme against torture before it in 2001. The new European security strategy will, meanwhile, remain without any sustainable content unless it is anchored to a consistent, coherent and credible human rights policy which the Council also wholeheartedly embraces. All eyes turn now to Ireland. Unless there is a wind of change both in our bilateral relations and in the United Nations we will have to prepare, not just for a combination of virtual farce and disaster, such as we saw at the fifty-ninth sitting of the Commission on Human Rights, but also for the fact that we will be wasting what is historically a golden opportunity right now when our work could have crucial, not to say epoch-making, importance.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I supported the Members' Statute because we need urgent reform of our travel expenses system in time for the new Parliament next July. Now that we have this resolution, we can open negotiations with the Council on the Members' Statute. I hope that when we look at the salary level we will look again at the report of independent experts, which gave an excellent way forward for looking at the salary issue.

Political group: PSE