GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I would like to start by echoing the point made by Minister Roche in his introduction that it is to the European Union's enormous credit that we can produce this critical self-appraisal, this report on human rights within the EU. It is very easy to criticise other parts of the world; it is more difficult, and to our credit, that we are prepared to look within the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the governments working together to make a more democratic institution – not by any stretch of the imagination a super-state that needs to be feared, as we might read in the papers. As Commissioner Vitorino quite rightly said, there are many positive points that we can take on board from this; and we can build on good practice from one country to another. I also agreed both with him and with Minister Roche when they spoke of the need to develop a modern interpretation of the Geneva Convention on refugees. The situation today is different from the post-war era of 1951, but the challenges may be similar, even if the practicalities will be different. We all need to cooperate if we are to implement its principles. Nothing could be more important for an EU of 25 countries than to have a common European policy on immigration and, alongside but separate, a common European policy for asylum. The rapporteur has referred to the need for this and I commend her on her work. As she says, it must not be based on the lowest common denominator; rather, a system that will gain the most respect and be the least subject to criticism will be based on the highest possible standards, will respect families, and will respect human rights.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the fight against terrorism is clearly the current major concern of the European citizens and it therefore also has to be the main priority of our political action. Mr President, I am talking about terrorism in all its forms, because there is no legal or moral basis for distinguishing between forms of terrorism, just as there is no such thing as a good murder or a bad murder. In this respect, the action plan against terrorism, which the Belgian Presidency and the Commission are promoting vigorously, includes measures which we had argued for before 11 September. In fact we must remember that the proposals in this area presented by the Commission are not the result of improvisation, but they conform to a mandate received at the European Council in Tampere, whose implementation had suffered considerable delay, which was condemned by the European Parliament on several occasions. We are still awaiting the final approval of the Regulation on the freezing of assets, incorporating, it is true, as the European Parliament argued for, a list of European terrorist organisations, taking into account the financial operative support and propaganda framework of the terrorists. I therefore believe that we must welcome the Council’s commitment to approve a package of measures at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 6 and 7 December. I am sure that the European Parliament will rise to the occasion and approve its consultative opinion before that. Mr President, I will end by saying that none of these instruments being provided to the judicial administration of the Member States imply the least restriction of the civil liberties of European citizens, but quite the opposite: they provide additional means for protecting the freedom which those who use terrorism to try to impose their ideas take away from the individual.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I want to thank Mrs Grossetête for her report. I agree with her: there is nothing more important that we could devote time to discussing in this Parliament. Preceding the downfall of the Roman Empire it was customary to take out the imperial decree, unroll the great scroll of purple and gold, read it, have it copied and distribute it – and nobody took the slightest notice of it. There is no surer way to bring about the downfall and disintegration of this Union than to make laws that Member States do not ensure are then observed. One thing that did not come up in the discussion was the greater use that could be made of the proceedings in this House, particularly Question Time, to bring to the attention of the Commission and exchange views with them on grievances that arise throughout the Union. These are increasingly being brought to the attention of Members of Parliament. In the early days I lived in a border area where the right of freedom of movement of goods and services was not being observed and I found I could get a lot of satisfaction by raising questions directly with the Commission. In those days Parliament did not have the same power or prestige that it has today. So instead of reducing working time in this House we should devote a little more time to underlining the failures of the European Union to implement its decisions. There are some areas that people, particularly in business, are well-familiar with, such as the single market. But there are other areas where there is a lot of confusion. I was at a conference last week. Someone pointed out the fact that we need 100 million migrant workers in this Union over the next 25 years if we are to maintain economic growth and meet our social obligations. If that happens, there will be a lot of movement of people. If, from the very beginning, the European Union and the Member States make it clear that these people have equal rights, that the conditions on which they are admitted are common conditions and that they are free to move within the Union after they enter, then citizens would be half-way towards accepting the situation and we could forestall a lot of the difficulties with migrants which are already emerging.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, I must thank you for agreeing, on most points, with the European Parliament’s resolution, which lays down our whole philosophy on climate change. Really, I would like to concentrate on the points which are of most concern to this Parliament. Firstly, the European Union must continue to lead the way at the meeting which will take place in Bonn from the 25th of the month and, if necessary, it would be very useful to suggest a unilateral reduction, which was initially envisaged as 15%. Secondly, we also feel that it is essential that the Kyoto Protocol be ratified. I think that it is scandalous that 84 countries signed it and yet only 12, mostly small islands, have ratified it. Perhaps these small islands have done so because the danger is much closer to home for them. The European Union therefore, must make efforts to ensure that its Member Countries also sign this protocol. I am also very keen on emphasising the issue raised by Commissioner Wallström, regarding a concrete plan of action. I think that the time has arrived, Commissioner and Madam President-in-Office of the Council, to abandon rhetoric and to take action. If you abandon rhetoric and take action, this Parliament will certainly support you.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, without doubt the directive proposed by the European Commission is an important step towards the creation of a single area of freedom, security and justice. It organises judicial cooperation at Community level and introduces uniform rules in international private law, an area in which they were sorely lacking. Standard treatment of all European citizens in connection with family disputes and the care and control of children in the event of divorce will spare thousands of families considerable anguish and bureaucratic obstruction, thereby bolstering the sense of security and confidence in the European Union of our citizens. The proposed changes, such as giving the child an opportunity to be heard before taking a decision and full compliance with the Hague Convention, seek mainly to safeguard the rights and interests of children. I hope that Mrs Gebhardt will use her considerable skills to draft a change which satisfies all sides. However, this generally positive assessment of the directive notwithstanding, I believe that numerous matters still remain unresolved, such as full application of the new arrangements to third country nationals resident in the European Union and to persons living together outside close, traditional family arrangements. The directive is a good directive; however, it needs to be more daring if it is to pave the way, in the foreseeable future, for a single European family law which takes account of the huge social, economic and cultural changes which are the order of our day.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, following the demise of Edwina Currie, the British health minister, who in 1988 said that most of the UK's egg production was infected with salmonella, it is a brave British politician who makes a speech on this subject. Following that bombshell, egg consumption in the UK fell by 60% and the government embarked on what can only be described as knee-jerk reaction, when they slaughtered 2 million chickens. Although some progress has been made in combating salmonella in the UK, there is still much work to be done. There are still 15,000 or 16,000 cases per year of salmonella food poisoning in the UK, half the previous levels. Of course, this is not just a problem in Europe. In the United States in 1994, there was a case connected with contaminated ice cream where nearly a quarter of a million people became ill. Sweden, as Mrs Paulsen has said, has led the way but there they have looked at, for example, heat treatment of feed rather than just looking at the blunt tool of slaughter of flocks. Of course, we hear stories now of Swedes going to Spain on holiday and falling like flies from salmonella food poisoning because they are not used to the constant exposure. It is certainly true that Member States need to make progress to establish more effective national control programmes and at the same time, we need to ensure that imported products meet our own high standards. We must also concentrate on where the problem is, and that is poultry, and in particular eggs which are eaten raw. Pork is less of a problem and, anyway, my grandmother would say that anyone eating raw pork deserves to be ill. Infection in cattle and sheep is negligible so we can continue to eat our rare steak. On the issue of antibiotic resistance, there is resistance building up. However, we should not rush to ban prophylactic antibiotic use, as we could then see an explosion of disease prompting high levels of the resultant therapeutic use that could exacerbate the situation. Lastly, on the issue of plant-based infection, maybe that has something to do with the increase in organic food consumption where I understand you are 30 times more likely to get e-coli infection.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, President-designate of the Commission Prodi, if we are optimistic and confident about the future, we can state that we are now in a perfect situation. Now, all the possibilities of steering the actions of the EU are better than ever and the confidence of the citizens is growing in that direction. Before us we have a new Commission, which has bound itself in the hearings to making the actions of the Union more transparent, more efficient and more comprehensible. We have also heard from each Member of the Commission that the Commission will be getting leaders in each field who have committed themselves to working more closely with Parliament. As a College, the Commission has affirmed that it is prepared for real reforms through the mouthpiece of its President. The hard rebuke given to us in the parliamentary elections in June by the citizens of Europe is still fresh in our minds. We cannot continue on the present course, but the Union must engage in prompt reforms which will transform the procedures of all the institutions of the Union for the next Millennium. The Commission has to move forward at the same pace as the reality of the Member States and their citizens. Here, Mrs Roth-Behrendt has drawn attention to a particularly important matter: the Commission really must bear in mind the true matters of concern for the citizens when choosing its own priorities and publicising them, such as environmental issues, an enduring development in all areas as well as the need to protect the consumer. To this, I would also add equality of citizens and social equality. Although I did say that all of the opportunities facing us are better than they have been before, I fear that it will not be possible to make use of them. First and foremost, the question is whether the future Commission will have the ability to carry out fundamental reforms instead of just being content to gloss over the real problems with sticking-plaster policies. We cannot afford to do this, and I am sure that real reforms are on the way. For the tasks ahead, I also wish the future Commission a long life.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, firstly I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague, Mr van Hulten. It is a good feeling to be able to say that he is from our delegation and I am, I think, entitled to feel a little proud of him. I would in any case like to congratulate him on his report. Mr President, the Commission’s resignation has also created a culture of fear amongst many officials within the hierarchy and large bureaucracy. The call to make a cultural U-turn and embrace a culture of responsibility seems to me a very fundamental one. I have witnessed from close up within the Development Committee how thousands of projects stagnate and how sometimes up to 80% of the money is not spent. Sometimes, an enormous reservoir of money is created, not because it is not desperately needed, not because there are no sound proposals, but because the whole system has collapsed. A lack of responsibility, too much ex ante, not enough ex post and, as a result, far too little in the way of a culture of real effective spending. It would be marvellous if this report were to give the green light to result-oriented spending of this kind, with all the work organised on that basis. When the Commission’s first draft report soon becomes the official report on 1 March, I very much hope that our input here will help ensure that we will actually witness this change. Without any doubt, this will then be a service, Mr President, to the European public and, by means of the results we produce, we will also regain and re-acquire something which we have ostensibly lost over the past couple of years. This is the best support we can give to European democracy. If, in this way, we can move away from the culture of the fifties and cross over into the next century, we are witnessing a very special moment indeed.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, all of this is, of course, music to my ears. Naturally, I would like to thank you for your response and the clarification as well as the distinction you have drawn between national measures on the one hand and Community measures on the other. In practice, however, I have noticed that all hell has broken loose, not just in my own country but – I assume – in other countries too. Our own regional Minister for Agriculture in the Flanders Region, Mrs Dua, has mentioned levies on meat. Others have mooted the idea of an increase in VAT, others still would like to pass the buck to Europe. All I can see is a great deal of chaos and insecurity in my country. Despite the fact that, apparently, the Commission will have to be notified of such measures, there is a great deal of concern among farmers, and also amongst those in the meat-processing industry, and certainly among our local butcher shops, who, at the end of the day, will have to take the first blow. Would it indeed not be preferable to harmonise the compensation or the way in which the costs will be met, at the time that all tests need to be carried out, in advance rather than afterwards, thus ruling out any distortion of competition? Your response in this matter is somewhat disappointing, in my opinion.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we meet this afternoon under the banner of ‘enlargement of the European Union’. The speeches made by Members confirm my belief that we are all agreed on one thing, namely that we want enlargement of the European Union, and we are working at every level to realise this objective in a responsible manner. The timetable is an ambitious one. The end is in sight, although chapters on such things as agriculture and regional policy have yet to be sorted out. Let me, in this context, refer back to yesterday, when farmers from the present Community demonstrated in front of the parliament building. They presented the concerns that they have about their future and demonstrated about the mid-term review of Agenda 2000. What they were concerned about was a fair chance for their businesses, and thus for their families, in the future. What made the greatest impression on me was the solidarity our farmers showed with their counterparts from the future Member States, despite the adverse situation they themselves have been put in by falling prices for milk and cereals. This was for me an appeal for everything possible to be done for the people in the present EU and in the candidate countries not to be left alone with their concerns and needs. So we too have to talk about their problems. Let us take Sapard as our first practical example. The flow of funds here is quite inadequate. They should be kept for agriculture and rural areas. Secondly, the funds that continue to be needed for the development of rural areas must be provided by all the structural policy measures and not just from the common agricultural policy. Thirdly, full harmonisation is absolutely necessary in the internal market. I will stop there and thank you for listening, as there are a few people who have been waiting a very long time already.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group I would like to say how pleased we are that this debate is taking place and I also welcome the Commission’s statement, which has a ring of vigour and decisiveness. As far as policy in Africa is concerned, the figures speak for themselves. AIDS threatens the long-term development of at least ten African countries. The epidemic there causes more deaths than do armed conflicts on that continent. Two million people have died of AIDS-related diseases, which is ten times the amount of people that have died due to armed conflicts. In the year 2001 there will be more than 13 million orphans in Africa on account of AIDS. At the same time, there is no, or at least not enough, money to pay for drugs in Africa. Of course it is not just an African problem, as the Commission rightly commented. The disease knows no boundaries. That is why it is our duty to do something about it, and I fully endorse what Mrs Maij-Weggen had to say in this regard. Accordingly, there are two issues I would briefly like to go into. Firstly there is the problem relating to compulsory licensing, which I believe will also come up for discussion at the WTO meeting soon to take place in Seattle. Compulsory licensing must not be allowed to lead to people in Africa no longer being able to afford anti-AIDS drugs. This really is a big problem over there. AIDS drugs can be produced more cheaply than is the case at present. That is an issue that needs to be addressed. My second question relates to the financial aid delivered by the European Union. I hear reports to the effect that not all this aid gets to where it is supposed to be going and that one of the reasons for this is that this aid, or at least a part of it, is distributed via national governments. If that is the case, then it would be worth looking into whether something can be done about this. On a final note, I want to add my voice to the appeal made by the Commission. I have in mind its appeal to religious authorities to play an active part in preventive programmes, particularly where the distribution of condoms is concerned

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I have visited Iraq all too often to have any illusions. There is no doubt that the regime in Baghdad is a dictatorship based on terror. At the same time, however, it is obvious that the West’s reactions and sanctions have failed totally, hitting civilians instead of the dictatorship. There is a light in the darkness, in the autonomous Kurdish areas in the north. The Kurds have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. They want a new regime. On the other hand, they advise against military intervention as they know they would be the object of Saddam’s revenge. I believe we should listen to them, and consequently we in the Group of the are resolutely opposed to any large-scale American attack. I believe that Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne’s report is, unfortunately, particularly characteristic of the type of misguided reaction to the Saddam regime that has helped him to be on the verge of celebrating his 35-year anniversary as Iraq’s true dictator. It is not our intention, here, to adopt a stance towards Baroness Nicholson’s statement or her analysis, but towards the resolution itself. I believe we will also be able to vote for the report following amendments from the , providing, of course, that Article 7 remains as it is in the report and is not deleted as proposed in certain amendments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur, Gerhard Schmid, and other colleagues on the committee. As Mr Schmid said, he had at the beginning a very difficult brief. Let us remember that the pressure for this report came as a result of some quite fanciful journalism in different countries and some wild, weird and wonderful assertions, most of which served to undermine the very case that the authors themselves were trying to make. The surprise of this report is the fact that very few of these allegations are substantiated. Several speakers this morning have referred to the UK’s role in this matter. The report acknowledges that every state in the European Union and elsewhere in the world needs some sort of interception to protect national security, safeguard its economy and fight crime. That is nothing exceptional. All the Member States do it, cooperating with each other and with other friendly democratic countries. For example, to counter terrorism threats we need to collaborate with those who have the right skills and can help. I know the United States is helping Spain in its current difficulties. The UK also already ensures that any operations on UK soil are carried out with the full knowledge and consent of the UK government and are subject to UK law. That means – I hope Mrs McKenna is listening – that everything is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope we can put to rest some of the assertions and allegations that are still flying around about what is going on in the UK as well. Furthermore, the UK stands completely by the conclusion reached in Council that in no circumstances may telecommunications interceptions be used to gain commercial advantage. Numerous allegations were made before the report was published. They have been repeated today by a colleague who has since left and, as Mr Schmid will testify and the report shows, there is no evidence to substantiate them. I thank the rapporteur on his very comprehensive report and Mr Coelho for chairing the committee.

Political group: PSE