GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, according to Rule 6(6) of the Rules of the Procedure, committee reports concerning immunity of Members shall be placed at the head of the agenda. Recent events have reminded us that questions of immunity are not mere matters of form, but go to the substance of great issues of democracy in Europe and you have, indeed, alluded to that yourself. Are you certain that it satisfies Rule 6(6) to take these issues of immunity after the Commission communication which appears to have been placed at the head of the agenda ahead of the issues of immunity? Is that a correct interpretation of Rule 6?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, as rapporteur for Estonia, I find myself thinking back to that remarkable day nine and a half years ago, when I arrived in Estonia for the first time. Even then, there was tangible evidence of a firm intention of clearing away the past, looking forward, uniting the people's own abilities with the possibilities of modern technology and bringing about an unparalleled modernisation of the economy and the administration. It is true that the drastic economic measures brought social hardship in their wake, but such things may also be observed in other countries. It appears to me, however, that Estonia's economic structure has in the meantime become healthier than in many other candidate countries. This increases the possibilities for now giving greater attention to society's social cohesion. Although I have already started on the problem areas, I would very much like to recall what Commissioner Verheugen said, that we have to show a bit of generosity now that we have reached the final negotiation stage. I wish to put this in specific terms by saying that the European Union is not going to be flooded by such things as Estonian milk, which, if it goes anywhere, will end up seeping away into Finland. We have seen, though, how, for ten years, the Estonians left their agriculture to the mercies of world market conditions. If we had done that in the European Union, we would surely show particular concern for those who survived such drastic treatment. Nothing less than that, I believe, should we show to the Estonians where this is concerned. So please let there be some generosity towards this sector in Estonia! There are other problems in such areas as the extraction of oil-shale, where structural problems are added to environmental ones, and the curious thing is that it is in this sector that the minority are particularly heavily represented. There too, I believe, we in the European Union have to take some share in investment. But, all in all, I want to say to our Estonian friends: ‘Tere tulemast ja kõike head, kallit söbrad eestist!’ In my role as deputy chairman of the delegation for the EU's relations with Lithuania, I would like to make the brief observation that, when we had our JPC meeting there last week, we had extensive discussions of why we were not very happy about the possible practical effects of the agreement on Kaliningrad. We fear that the Lithuanian authorities in particular, but also travellers themselves, will have to put up with a certain number of things being technically inadequate or impracticable, and we hope that it may be possible to find even better solutions. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, please allow me to remind you that this is a codecision procedure and that this Parliament is a co-legislating body. And perhaps you are not aware of this obvious fact because I am doubtful whether, in this case, the European Parliament has fulfilled its duties properly. I will explain. In December, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market voted for a text, which is not going to be approved today, but rather certain amendments are going to be approved which differ radically from what was voted for in that meeting of the committee. Why was there this disparity? Because what the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market voted for responds to the honourable Members’ will, while the ultimate paternity of the text we are going to approve today corresponds to the Council. Please do not imagine that what I am saying is in any way a criticism of the rapporteur; far from it. Mrs Fourtou has done good work trying to reconcile positions, but in the end she has been faced with an inflexible position on the part of the Council, which has said ‘if you want the Directive to be approved, you must approve what we say’. And since we are aware of the need to approve the Directive, what we have carried out – and Mrs Fourtou in particular – has been an exercise in responsibility. But sometimes we should ask ourselves whether we also impose this exercise in responsibility on the Council. There can be no doubt that this Directive is necessary, but nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the text approved will resolve the problems which have been raised. I believe it is no mistake to say that the text approved is going to be the laughing stock of commentators and is going to cause many difficulties for the Member States when it comes to incorporating it into their internal law. The Council’s desire to prevent the European Commission’s initiative from containing, for example, criminal law provisions, has created such confusion between civil sanctions, administrative procedures and administrative sanctions, that I cannot imagine what the Member States are going to do when it comes to applying it. We are clearly going to approve this text, but with great scepticism. At the same time, the Spanish Socialists at least are going to support certain amendments in order to reflect the fact that the Council, with the enforced cooperation of the European Parliament, has completely undermined what was originally a very good Commission initiative.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I should first, of course, like to congratulate Mrs Klamt on her report. It is not only excellent in quality but also extremely useful. Everyone agrees on the idea that children are the future of the world but, at the same time, they represent one of the most vulnerable groups in the population of this planet. Indeed, the United Nations Convention of 20 November 1989 granted them specific rights and all our actions should take their inspiration from recognition of these rights. We must tackle a dreadful scourge, the sexual exploitation of children. There are ‘clients’, if one can use the word in such a horrifying situation, who buy children in order to indulge their sexual fantasies. These clients, from Europe, the United States or Japan are the hard core of child abusers. This horrendous phenomenon occurs principally in third countries where there is great poverty. The chief causes are poverty and social inequality, the collapse of family and community protection, discrimination against girls and ignorance. All these causes combine to form a melting pot where lives are shattered by the greed of some parties and the deviance of others. We might remember the old Japanese proverb which says, ‘The traveller knows no shame’. Some people have no qualms about doing in another country what they would not do at home. It is a compound of anonymity and impunity coupled with a scorn one might describe as racist, which permits some individuals to treat a child as an object to be used, defiled and rejected. Most child prostitutes are part of the general prostitution market run by Mafias of procurers. It is very hard to locate these children and to extract them from a life of prostitution. Unfortunately, some individuals use the Internet to provide details of their base acts and addresses where children can be procured. We cannot remain indifferent to this scourge which represents an appalling infringement of children’s rights and human rights, and we must protect these children by attacking the origins of the problem and by pursuing the paedophiles. The origins of the problem can be attacked by tackling poverty and ignorance. There must be criminal penalties for child abusers. The first chapter of the European Charter on the Rights of the Child states that ‘child’ refers to any person under the age of 18. I suggest that we adopt this age limit and say that all minors must absolutely be protected. It is our duty to this generation which represents our future, a generation which expects us to protect and respect it.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, 500 000 EU citizens die each year from smoking – that is 1 400 a day. Even if a small number of people stop, it will have huge health implications, not only for smokers but for passive smokers as well. It is important that we fight delaying tactics today. The EU already regulates health warnings and tar yields. Smokers also have a right to know that there are more than 600 additives licensed for use in tobacco products. They have a right to know that 'light' and 'mild' branding is misleading. People inhale more if they have a light cigarette than any other cigarette. The health warning should be large and explicit. We must warn of the dangers of smoking, the dangers of lung cancer and also the danger of bronchitis and asthma. People must know that it is not just lung cancer but other lung diseases and other diseases as well. We must warn of the dangers of passive smoking. I know the dangers of smoking and the dangers of passive smoking. I started smoking when I was 11 years old. I ended up smoking 40 a day. I had chronic bronchitis and I was told by the doctor that I had to give up as otherwise my life would be in danger. My health has been damaged by smoking. There was no warning when I took up smoking. Maybe I would not have taken it up if there had been. Now I am the victim of passive smoking. I just have to pass a cigarette and I have an asthma attack, especially in this building. I have asthma attack after asthma attack. I am a good example of why we should adopt this report now. Even if one person stops smoking as a result of this, or does not take it up; even if one person is not inconsiderate any more; even if it stops one person being hospitalised because of other people's smoke, it is worth it.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I begin by thanking our rapporteur, Mr Pex, although he is absent this evening, for his work on this very important report, which we broadly support. It is extremely important to have legislation in place under which those responsible for unlawful oil or chemical discharges from ships can be prosecuted. We are no longer prepared to put up with reckless behaviour, which too often has resulted in irreparable damage to the environment. Nevertheless, it is necessary to differentiate between intentional and accidental pollution. The United Kingdom already has criminal sanctions in place for unlawful discharges from ships, as specified in the Marpol Convention, and matters relating to criminal law should, as such, fall within the competence of the Member State and not the Community. Furthermore, as there have been no practical difficulties between Member States in deciding where a prosecution should take place, this proposal should be removed from the framework decision. Finally on this point, the introduction of a European coastguard is neither practical nor necessary, nor is it consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. British Conservative MEPs will oppose those amendments. As regards the Poignant Report, in principle we support this proposal and accept that the new regulation will improve cooperation between the administrators of maritime registers in the Member States. As I clearly pointed out prior to the vote in the debate of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, British Conservative MEPs will vehemently oppose the integration of the emblem of the European Union onto our Red Ensign. It will do nothing to enhance security and could even make EU-registered ships potential targets. In addition, identification is not an issue, as all vessels carry their unique IMO numbers as well as the name of their ports of registry. To conclude, registration principles are determined internationally in the United Nations and IMO system, which is global rather than European. The EU is not a nation-state – fortunately – and it is doubtful whether anyone else would recognise an EU flag in terms of the international conventions.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, let us indeed tax money speculation: it does not produce anything new. The tax would be targeted at the right place: at the speculators. Who is going to defend these speculators, when nurses and teachers are paying top rates of tax? Article 73 c of the Treaty establishing the European Union provides scope for taxation on transactions. Those who oppose taxation on currency dealing are in favour of those tax-recycling centres, the tax havens, of which there are 62 in all. The Union should make a tax pact, which any countries could initially be party to. The low rate Tobin tax would not cause tax-recycling problems. It is strange to claim that if everyone is not included it would be impossible to bring into effect. The European Union was founded through the efforts of just a few countries, and you see how we are today. The truth is the greatest problem is a political one: they do not want to tax capital, but raise personal taxation instead. In the end tax would politicise the global, undemocratic system of financial power. Ladies and gentlemen, we must challenge the monopoly the world’s speculative elite have on planning the world’s economy by remaining outside the tax system.

Political group: PSE
We have voted against approving the Commission’s and the Swedish Government’s agreement gradually to abolish the derogations concerning the rules governing imports of alcohol and tobacco into Sweden. The Swedish Government has caved in to the supremacy of EU bureaucracy and abandoned its previous position to the effect that questions relating to excise duties are to be decided unanimously by the Council. Its action is also a breach of the pledge which the yes side issued before the Swedish referendum. This pledge meant that the powerful temperance movement did not campaign against Swedish membership of the EU, which was probably the decisive factor in Sweden’s becoming a member of the EU. We would nonetheless welcome much of what is contained in the Maaten report, which admits clearly and unambiguously that alcohol policy is a health-related issue and not, as the Commission sees it, solely a question of the internal market and of agricultural policy. In our view, the conclusions of the Maaten report are nonetheless contrary to the very spirit of the arguments which permeate the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, it seems to be fate. On the final day of the last part-session – 24 October 2001 – we were discussing the reopening of the Mont Blanc tunnel. There was a bit of an argument – some were in favour, such as yours truly, and some wanted to put back the date of this major event. Suddenly, into the middle of the debate came the news of the other incident in the St Gotthard tunnel, an unforeseen incident similar to that which had occurred in the Mont Blanc tunnel and which we had thought would now never be repeated. Those in favour of opening the Mont Blanc tunnel to traffic immediately were once again advocating this line of action on health grounds, basing their argument particularly on a document produced by the operating company, which, pompously – and maybe rightly – stated that the Mont Blanc tunnel, rebuilt after the accident, is now the safest in the world. I remember announcements, official pronouncements, so to speak, describing the St Gotthard tunnel as the most important tunnel certainly in Europe if not in the world. Now we know that a very run-of-the-mill accident was enough in the past, is enough now and will be enough in future to turn these megasafe tunnels into people traps, and the many victims always pay with their lives. It is difficult to apportion blame for these incidents; moreover, that is not for us to do. However, one statistic does need to be mentioned here, for it concerns something for which we and, in particular, the Commission are responsible. Indeed, considering that five times as many vehicles pass through the St Gotthard tunnel as usually run on all the other major routes through the Alps, we are faced with a transport policy error, and that is partly the fault of Europe, for most of the vehicles, particularly the heavy goods vehicles, are European. I would therefore put two questions to the Commission. What has happened to the directive on harmonising the minimum safety requirements for road and rail tunnels? And I would ask the Commission, what has happened to the action plan for an integrated transport policy in the Alpine region? When the answers have been given to these two questions, we can proceed to the usual road versus rail argument. Lastly, Mr President, I do not agree that heavy goods vehicles should be banned from using the tunnel. Road haulage contractors have a right of passage and a right to provide a service as well.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, today we face real problems as a result of the massive influx of families of refugees arriving with toddlers and babies in tow to seek asylum. This situation is caused by the distress of thousands of refugees and displaced persons, who have had to leave countries in which they are politically, economically or socially oppressed and in which wars and conflicts are raging, often against their will and sometimes at the cost of their life. We need proper refugee centres, otherwise it is all down to the local authorities and they can no longer cope. They do not have the human resources, infrastructure or funds needed to respond to this distress. So what we have to do is find a satisfactory long-term response to these problems and adopt a humane approach in terms of asylum and immigration policy. We cannot continue to close our eyes to these problems. We cannot continue to bury our head in the sand. That way we are heading for a catastrophe. If serious problems persist at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel despite the joint efforts of the French and British governments to stop refugees trying to cross illegally, it is because we have no joint asylum policy at European level. Every country in the European Union is affected because the difficulties we face stem from the fact that we have no harmonised asylum procedures in Europe. We therefore need to adopt a package of measures to implement a European asylum policy post haste. We need to all join forces and examine the problems facing us. The European Union needs to demonstrate its determination to take fast decisions on various instruments, on minimum standards in refugee centres and on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status in the spirit, lest we forget, of the Tampere European Council.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, competitiveness naturally has to do with employment as well. What interests me, therefore, is how far the Council deals with taxation issues. We all know that taxation has very substantial impacts on national economic development. Is there an opportunity here, using benchmarking and best practice, to ascertain how taxation can influence competitiveness, not only in Europe but internationally?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my group also supports the proposal by the chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to treat this whole affair carefully in that committee. Nonetheless, we will vote for this resolution because, unlike the earlier ones, it is an extremely moderate and responsible reaction to the statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre to the Committee on Home Affairs The EPP Group also took part in the discussions and decisions on the present resolution. So I am extremely surprised that the members of the Austrian People’s Party are unable to endorse this resolution, which merely expresses an initial concern and is an initial call on the Austrian Government, and have chosen instead to give us a taste of the way the Austrian Government treats its government critics. Mr Pirker reads out some statements by the head of the Monitoring Centre but keeps silent about the terrible statements she made in committee, where Mr Pirker himself launched violent attacks on her, about the defamation of the Centre in the Austrian Parliament, about the systematic harassment, the lack of security provisions, the lack of support. I am sad to see the ÖVP members also giving us a sample here of the way they deal with government critics in their own country; in fact attempting to present them as traitors to their country. If you listened to Mr Pirker’s allegations that any criticism is criticism directed against Austria, you will see that this really is an appalling attempt to invent a conflict between the defence of human rights and patriotism. That is a disgraceful attitude!

Political group: Verts-ALE
The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have supported the report on setting up a common European security and defence policy. There are nonetheless a number of features of the report about which we have reservations. First of all, it is important to state that, because of its reservation in the military sphere, Denmark cannot contribute forces to the common European rapid reaction force. Secondly, we are sceptical about the ideas for establishing a proper European space policy, if the intention behind this is for Europe to have a defence system such as that which the United States is in the process of establishing. From a research point of view and in relation to the monitoring of the environment, a common European space programme may nonetheless have some advantages. Thirdly, there are a number of points in the report which leave one wishing that the European Parliament had more influence in devising a common European security and defence policy. We think it is very important to state that formulating security and defence policy is an intergovernmental concern in which the European Parliament neither can nor should be involved. Further institutionalisation of security and defence policy in the EU is therefore a development that we cannot support. It is up to each individual Member State to decide to what extent it wants to participate in a common European security and defence policy. Nor, furthermore, is it a task for the European Parliament to define what capacity a European rapid reaction force should possess and whether or not it should, for example, include a capacity for intervention by air and sea. Parliament’s desire for all Member States to contribute financially to the European rapid reaction force, even if they are not involved in operations, is in our view inappropriate since it could mean, for example, that some countries are involved in a conflict they do not wish to take part in. In connection with this, it is also important to emphasise that those Member States that are neutral must not in any way be compromised. Their desire to remain neutral must be respected in every way.

Political group: PSE