GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, we, who supported Eritrea’s struggle for independence, are alarmed by the changes in this country's governing authorities, while the tragic consequences of the recent conflict with Ethiopia are already causing suffering. In September 2001, 11 members of the Eritrean opposition, including several former ministers who had published a letter calling for a return to democracy by the ruling party, were arrested by the government. As well as the arrests, a ban, described by the authorities as temporary, was imposed on the private press. The elections were also adjourned and the formation of new political parties was prohibited. Journalists and Eritrean dissident politicians were gagged by the regime. These repressive measures, which violate freedom of expression, are worrying and unacceptable. They blatantly contradict the Eritrean authorities’ proclaimed desire to undertake democratic reforms. Furthermore, the expulsion in October 2001 of the Italian ambassador, who represented the European Union on the ground, severely undermined relations with Eritrea. Yet, in order to enable relations between Eritrea and the European Union to return to normal, it is essential that human rights and fundamental freedoms be respected. For this to happen, the Eritrean Government must not only release all political prisoners and journalists, but it must also lift the ban on all independent journalists. That is why the European Union must re-examine its relations with Eritrea in the light of the Cotonou Agreement, Article 96 of which calls for an inter-Eritrean national conference to be held, bringing together the various political leaders and representatives of civil society, with a view to finding a solution to the current crisis and to setting the country on the path to democracy and sustainable development.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I voted against the decision on combating terrorism because I feel it is fundamentally flawed. I recognise that there have been some improvements – for example in Recital 10. A lot of people are putting faith in the Council's statement, which is not part of the legally binding text. It is basically only a political promise. People should be extremely wary of political promises. The statement protects the right of people to protest, which is one of the fundamental issues that people were very concerned about. If it had been in the text itself it might have been legally binding. But there is no guarantee as to how this legislation will be used. Will it interfere with the rights of people who are unhappy with the status quo and want to change things? We also have to look at how it will impact on foreigners, for example people from different cultural and religious backgrounds – some people in Western society are extremely wary of them. There is a great threat to their fundamental rights. On the European arrest warrant I would endorse what Mr MacCormick has said. It was very disappointing to see so many people in this Parliament not support an amendment that would have given people some sort of protection in relation to protecting their basic civil liberties.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Socrates II has now arrived, even though it cost a certain amount of effort. Negotiating with the Council into the early hours of the morning is not always too exciting, but it was worth it this time. Throughout the process, Mrs Pack has done a lot of good work, and I want to take the opportunity to thank her, just as I want to thank Commissioner Reding for her collaboration. We have obtained a good Socrates programme containing some sensible initiatives which take account of the fact that the EU is on the brink of enlargement. As a Dane, I cannot help but comment, in particular, on the Grundtvig initiative. In Denmark, we have had a distinguished tradition of lifelong learning since the nineteenth century, and it is precisely the poet, priest and co-author of the Danish constitution, N.F.S. Grundtvig, who stands out as one of the founders of the entire folk high school movement in Denmark, a movement which helped educate ordinary people at a time when this was unusual. The Danish folk high schools also play an important role in offering education to people of all ages. It is good that we have got ourselves a scheme designed to give a boost to lifelong learning. It is no secret that, when we insisted to the bitter end in Parliament that the Directive should include a review clause, this was in order to ensure that the programme would also be able to function properly following any enlargement of the European Union. Mr President, all I can do is warmly recommend people to vote in favour of this report. In fact, I cannot imagine anyone voting against it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, compromises are often the only things to come out of difficult situations. I warmly thank Mrs Paulsen for her commitment and for her staying power during the quest for the workable compromise that we eventually found and which, taking all things into account, we find satisfactory. We also recommend approval of the joint draft. I would like to use the speaking time available to me today to make it abundantly clear that I did not vote for this compromise immediately and with any show of enthusiasm. The reason for this is that there is one item on which we are putting off a decision and entrusting the Commission with a mission the outcome of which is open. I refer, Commissioner, to the recycling of food waste, an issue which I see as being far from being resolved once and for all. The simple fact that something is intended for human consumption but is left over because nobody wants or is able to eat it, is a very long way from making it special category waste, with all the ensuing consequences for its treatment and disposal. Mr Goodwill has indeed referred to the many problems involved in disposal. Food waste, however, also represents valuable nutrients, which, as proved by examples in Germany and Austria, can become good feedingstuffs for animals when turned into swill and collected in accordance with the best organisational, technical and hygienic standards. We are very well aware that food waste can transmit diseases, some of them epidemics, from one animal to another, and that is why it needs the best possible preparation in accordance with the high standards facilitated by technology. That is why a general ban on the use of food waste as feed cannot be justified, as there are no rules on how such remnants should finally be disposed of. When it is cleared away from the table, does the meal on the plate suddenly become special category waste? We are calling for a general ban on the feeding of food waste to animals only until evidence is supplied that it is properly prepared. This compromise has, then, not finally removed this topic from the agenda. It is now for the Commission to present a proposal on the recycling of food waste by the end of 2004. This is a demand, to which I add the request that the existing options for swill preparation also be taken into account. Some small and medium-sized enterprises, family firms and farms have invested a great deal in this. There must above all be no loophole resulting from the initial enactment of a ban, followed some time later by the handing down of another authorisation, so that time elapses without any decision being taken. Enterprises need guarantees in order to plan ahead. Animal feed in the European Union must be safe and reliable for animals and humans.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has discussed the proposal for a regulation implementing an initiative by the Hellenic Republic, as decided at the Thessaloniki summit, on the crucial social and political issue of illegal immigration. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has unanimously accepted certain amendments, most of which have also been accepted by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and will, I hope, also be accepted by Parliament, and which improve the regulation. There have been previous proceedings on the matter in the European Union at previous Councils, but there was no agreement, meaning that our debate today positively ratifies a political wish of the European Union. This directive, without bringing a final result as a whole and a full political answer to the issue, is nonetheless a first important step forward. In one way, it communitises this policy and creates prospects for further improvements. The proposals by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, will, I hope, improve the regulation, making it more transparent and more democratic, with the safeguarding of parliamentary control and with cooperation which respects the legal order in the countries which will operate these networks. The operation of these networks will allow for better management of the resources made available by the European Union for this issue, will improve relations between the European Union and the countries in which the networks operate and may facilitate the foreign policy of the European Union by unifying it on this issue and by making it transparent to the countries, thereby facilitating our relations with them. In addition, given that various other illegal and criminal activities are carried out alongside illegal immigration which violate basic human rights and debase human dignity, such as trafficking in women and drugs, the modern slave trade etc., the proper application of the present regulation will offer positive services here too. Honourable Members, we constantly witness thousands of drownings on our shores or in our border rivers, deaths in containers, on the shores of the Mediterranean or the Channel or in inaccessible mountains. I hope that the proper application of this regulation, together with other supporting policies to develop and democratise the countries of origin of illegal immigrants, will significantly improve the deeper social and political problem which affects our societies and provides a breeding ground for a climate of racism and xenophobia which is an insult to the humanitarian and democratic values of European political and social civilisation.

Political group: PSE
The work programme ‘Equal Opportunities’ for the year 2002 is an excellent document. It effectively outlines the actions taken by the Commission and the strategy adopted. During a meeting of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities of this Parliament in April, Commissioner Diamantopoulou explained this strategy once again in the penetrating and convincing manner that is so characteristic of her. We very much appreciated the dialogue that was initiated at the time. I should particularly like to mention the initiative to develop policy within the gender dimension of foreign policy. The Commissioner might be able to inform us of the latest on this score. On a more general note, it should be mentioned in my view that the European Commission is currently ahead in the way it tackles gender mainstreaming. Many a Member State, but also the European Parliament, could take a leaf out of its book. I should like to single out a number of elements from the report by Mrs Figueiredo that is before us. First of all, I should like to turn my attention to paragraph 3 of her report, the issue of the so-called ‘Gender Institute’, which is, by the way, a strange term on which we should be able to improve. We learnt about the feasibility study on the subject of an Institute which collates and disseminates information, supports networks, and so on. In short, it fulfils a broker role, and the implication is that it could be useful to give women's issues a more political dimension in Europe and to support the professional content of our work. My question to the Commission is whether it shares this idea and would like to develop this further. Above all, would it like to ask Parliament for advice on this and if so, what is the timeframe it envisages? I am of the opinion that there are many people in the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities who are keen on the idea of an Institute, but would first like to see more concrete plans on the table before they can give their final verdict. My question is therefore: will the Commission produce such a plan? My second question pertains to paragraph 5. Can the Commission give assurances that it will draft a political analysis of the state of implementation by the Member States of the equal treatment acquis and of its intentions to amend this legislation, if necessary, or to start treaty inbox procedures? Finally, I should like to echo the request already made by Mrs Avilés Perea, and ask when the Commission will now finally produce its draft directive on equal treatment for which we have been waiting an awfully long time?

Political group: PSE
I wish to express my support for the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, Giorgio Lisi, to the initiative of the European Commission, establishing rules for the compensation and assistance of airline passengers in the event of ‘overbooking’, cancellation or delayed flights. We are all familiar with or have been victims of such practices, which throw travel arrangements into disarray. Under this initiative, air operators will appeal for ‘volunteers’ who, by giving up their seat, shall be offered a choice between having the cost of their ticket reimbursed, or being re-routed to their final destination. Customers who are denied boarding without having agreed to this shall be awarded financial compensation in proportion to the distance of the flight. These rules shall apply both to cases of ‘overbooking’, and the cancellation or delay of flights operated by regular and charter airlines.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I am going to make a very simple proposal relating to International Human Rights Day. Given that eight people recently lost their lives in tragic circumstances and that you, Madam President, often invite us to show our respect for those who are victims of violence by observing a minute’s silence, we should, naturally, observe a minute’s silence tomorrow morning at the opening of the sitting, for the eight people who recently died at the hands of evil traffickers.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Bösch: my group believes that, with him, this report is in capable hands. Despite this, we have still tabled a few amendments to his report. We remain adamant about the fact that this Parliament is not a court of law and that it does not need to pass judgment on certain cases. We must first wait and see what those reports bring and then judge whether the Commission has acquitted itself of its task expertly. That is why the jury is still out on the butter fraud, a case which is indeed probably very extensive, on the flax fraud in Spain and possibly in other countries too, on New Zealand butter and on Stockholm. We will wait for all the reports and will study the Commission’s behaviour in those situations, before passing judgment. We endorse Mr Bösch’s observations with regard to OLAF’s role. The Director will need to avail himself of his rights and will, as far as we are concerned, be backed by Parliament. Independence is a great good. We also endorse the remarks about the European Public Prosecutor, although I must admit that a minority in my group feels differently about this. We believe that it is necessary, with a view to protecting financial interests, that the Commission table proposals along these lines as soon as possible, and we have quoted, in an amendment, 1 June 2001 as the ultimate deadline in this connection. Closer cooperation is obviously needed between the Commission, the Member States and the European and national courts of auditors. It is probably wise – and we have tabled an amendment to this effect as well – if the Commission were first to define what exactly is considered to be fraud and what is an irregularity. That discrepancy will need to be done away with. We can support Mr Bösch’s late amendment on Switzerland. Switzerland is a key country in Europe when it comes to combating fraud, and we do well to bear this in mind. It is unfortunate that the Swiss population feels so lukewarm about Europe, a fact which we will also need to take into consideration. On a final note, we do not believe that Parliament should have unlimited access to all documents from OLAF. The nature of OLAF’s work is such that certain aspects must remain confidential and perhaps even secret.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I must begin by apologising for being delayed, thank to the vicissitudes of the European travel system. Mr Bourlanges's report is, in my view, an extremely virtuoso piece of work and, I must say, as an individual, I admire it very much. However, it reflects a very different tradition of political thinking from that in my own country. After all, what he has done is to create a theoretical template into which the workings of the European institutions and, in particular, certain aspects of the relationship between the European Parliament and the other institutions should be inserted. I believe this is the wrong way around. Rather, the best solution to the matters and problems he raises is to decide on the particular procedures, processes and mechanisms needed to handle most effectively the particular issues concerned and then to define and describe the workings of the European Union in that way. Quite regardless of the subject matter, some of which we Conservatives like and some of which we do not, we shall be voting against the report because we believe it looks at its subject matter the wrong way around – in a way that we believe is wrong for Europe.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have been a Member of this House for fifteen years, and for fifteen years, my group has been demanding the budgetisation of the EDF. It is an untenable situation that a fund with an overall budget of this level is not subject to any democratic parliamentary control. I believe it is essential to establish this control. Mr Scarbonchi's report identifies an adequate range of options to safeguard this control without inflicting any damage on the ACP countries, because special consideration must undoubtedly be given to ensuring that no ACP country is put at a disadvantage. Until now, the Council has been engaged in a kind of poker game over this issue, which is why the entry into force of the 9th EDF was delayed until 2003. It is absolutely essential that Parliament, in partnership and cooperation with the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, should be able to exert its influence. Implementing the objectives defined in the Cotonou Agreement must naturally be given priority, but the European Parliament can exercise accountability towards the public as well, which has not happened before. Let me sum up some of the demands set out in the report and which are indispensable: firstly, to safeguard the principles of partnership with the ACP countries, which I think is a given; secondly, to establish legal certainty and predictability, especially for the poorest of the poor, by which is meant the least developed countries, who – with some justification – are concerned that they may go away empty-handed. The task is to facilitate medium-term financial planning and not cling to the principle of annuality, which would make longer-term development cooperation impossible. Above all, of course, as various speakers have said, levels of development funding for ACP countries must be guaranteed. Even more important, however, is to prevent these funds being siphoned off to meet needs elsewhere. Instead, the resources must genuinely be committed to, and available to, the ACP countries and their use must be agreed with them on the basis of partnership. Provided that these criteria are met, I believe we will also clear up any preconceptions and reservations. To this end, we are hoping for support not only from the Commission but also, and above all, from the Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would also like to join the ranks of those who are saying thank you to Mr Florenz and the other speakers. I think they have done a really good piece of work. As regards the ban on hazardous substances, I am pleased that it is now being proposed that we bring forward this ban. I personally would have liked to see us have all flame retardants included from the start, but I think this is an issue that we must try to continue working on. With regard to dealing with waste, I think there are three crucial points. The first is that we must have the waste arising in these contexts separated from other unsorted waste as soon as possible. This requires a strategy plan in the individual countries, and it also very much requires us to have effective labelling so that we can identify the products in question. The second central point is naturally producer responsibility, and I can only agree with what many of the speakers have said concerning this point. It is important that we find a solution to this issue in relation to the entire life cycle of the product and that we also have provisions adopted concerning the financing of producer responsibility. As far as possible, the financing should take place on an individual basis, so that it can be used in the development of cleaner technology as a competitive parameter. I believe this may become one of the most important points of all. I would like to end by asking the Commissioner a question. I come, of course, from a country that has already implemented somewhat more restrictive rules in relation to hazardous substances. Since we are talking here about an internal market directive on hazardous substances, I would like to ask whether a country such as Denmark will be forced to rescind its more restrictive rules until the restrictive rules also enter into force in 2008 or 2006, depending on the year finally decided on for this phasing out of hazardous substances. It will naturally be very unfortunate for us if we are forced to return to poorer rules for a period, only to have the bans reintroduced at a later point in time.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I truly hope – and I say this from the bottom of my heart – I truly hope that Turkey will one day be a democratic country, for then some people in this House will find it hard to formulate speeches. My dear Mr Langen, I think very highly of you, but I have heard this speech often in the past, irrespective of what is happening in Turkey. It will no longer be possible to make some of these speeches because they always say the same thing, no matter what is going on in Turkey. In reality – and Commissioner Verheugen discussed this in some detail – we can see that a great deal is happening, but that it is not enough – quite right! We want more, we criticise Turkey – quite right! Please be honest, however, ladies and gentlemen! For many of you – you have heard only four speeches – all the human rights and civil rights are nothing but a facade. Many of you simply do not want Turkey. Just say it honestly, and then we will know where we stand. Let us tell Turkey straight, and we can dispense with this performance! Anything else really is just a performance. As a Member of this House I am pleased that the Council and the Commission have a greater degree of competence as regards shaping foreign policy, because the Parliament of which I am a Member is not capable of doing so.

Political group: PSE