GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
On the face of it these two proposals appear to be implementing certain procedural changes to facilitate freedom of movement across Europe and to give effect to the recent court cases Mrs Berger referred to in her opening remarks. However, in the case of the United Kingdom, we believe they go further than that in a manner which is unacceptable. Partly this is substance and partly it is in respect of the legal base in regard to the special position of the United Kingdom. Under the arrangements contained in the Treaties, the United Kingdom retains its border controls. Under the system proposed in these pieces of legislation, third country nationals wishing to move to the UK under the procedures described, will do so by virtue of the service provision card issued by another Member State, thereby by-passing UK border controls. If there is to be a change to the present United Kingdom border arrangements, that change should be made by the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament and not en passant by the European legislative process. For that reason, we shall vote against both these proposals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, with regard to this matter of the Protocol for 2003 adding to the International Fund for Compensation of Oil Pollution Damage established in 1992, which is in the form of an intergovernmental organisation, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, which I represent as rapporteur, was in favour of adopting the proposal for a Council Decision authorising the Member States to sign, ratify or accede to the Protocol. The FIPOL Protocol 2003 extends the maximum amount of cumulative funds available according to the various international agreements to 750 million special drawing rights, which, at the current exchange rate, is equivalent to 930 million euros. These funds are provided by shipowners and companies that receive oil transported by sea, to compensate for environmental disasters and victims of spills caused by accidents. One year after the Prestige accident, however, it is still difficult to assess the damage caused. A new report by the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that 3 000 kilometres of coastline were affected and calculates the damage to be around 5 000 million euros, in other words, five times the FIPOL Protocol for 2003 would be needed to deal with all of the damage caused. We therefore continue to call for a European Fund in addition to all the existing international funds, particularly considering the huge amount of oil traffic on our seas and the existence of areas such as the ‘Costa da Morte’, or the ‘Coast of Death’ in Galicia, which is one of the places where there have been the most maritime accidents in the past, along with other black spots such as the Calais straits, etc. We would also like to express our dissatisfaction at the deadline for this Protocol to be signed being extended to the end of June 2004, as agreed by the Council and the Member States, rather than retaining the original date of last December. If another accident were to take place during the first six months of this year, the cover would only be around 250 million euros, which is more than concerning. I would like to congratulate Mr Gil Robles on his report and I hope that the Commission will continue with its proposal for an additional European fund, because it is needed.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I have voted in favour of the European Parliament’s draft EU general budget for 2004. Although it contains commitments totalling EUR 200 million for 2003-2004 for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq, the budget is limited overall, amounting in the end to approximately one per cent of the Member States’ total estimated GDP for 2004. It is also important for Parliament to keep up the pressure on the Commission constantly to improve control and reporting. Measures must be taken to combat cheating and fraud. It is important and a matter of urgency that there should be a clearer link between agriculture and the environment. Adjustment of the common agricultural policy must include, for example, investments in higher food quality and the combating of animal diseases, which is a view shared by Parliament. The also believe that the subsidising of tobacco cultivation should be phased out, as well as, gradually, the export subsidies that distort prices in the world market and are unfair to the developing countries. It is only regrettable that such proposals have not been supported by Parliament. As Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, my colleague, Mr Wijkman, has successfully campaigned for EU development policy to be mainly aimed at achieving what are termed the millennium development objectives, above all in relation to combating poverty. Parliament has adopted this position, as well as wordings in the aid budget aimed at making development policy more results-oriented.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I regret that mine will be a somewhat discordant voice in this House tonight, save for that of my colleague, Mrs Boumediene-Thiery. It is, of course, the case that this House has set itself a worthy and good objective. But good ends do not justify any means whatever. It seems to me that this set of initiatives is going forward in a way which risks setting at naught the protection provided by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I do not see adequate account being taken of the right of defence, as Mrs Boumediene-Thiery said. I do not see adequate account of the rights of individuals to a fair trial, to fair presentation of charges before them. Without that, I fear we are creating a Frankenstein’s monster, though we, like Count Frankenstein, seek to do good. We must ensure that as we move towards mutual recognition of judgments we are establishing in Europe the highest common standard, not the lowest common denominator, when it comes to protecting persons brought into the justice system. As a member of this House, I have had cases brought to my attention. One example is a person on a money laundering charge, held for 364 days in custody in Portugal without any charge being presented. When finally it was presented it was in many pages of Portuguese, with an insufficient English summary translation, even though the person concerned knew no Portuguese. I have come across cases in France of lorry drivers, held on suspicion of drug trafficking – a shocking crime if it has been committed, but these persons are held in unacceptable conditions with no effective right to a defence of their own choosing, with inadequate or no interpretation facilities, with no opportunity to prove their innocence by due process of law in a reasonable time. While we live in a Europe in which such blots exist on our escutcheons we need to be extremely careful that the steps we are taking for good do not end up destroying civil liberty in some of its most fundamental aspects in Europe. Mr Andrews is right: those heavy penalties ought to fall upon those properly convicted, after fair trial, of offences of the kind we are considering. We must ensure that those who are the innocent victims – the collateral damage I suppose we should call it – of the war upon crime are not left languishing in jails, incommunicado from their families. There is too much of that in our contemporary Europe and before I give my support to a headlong rush to mutual recognition, I would like to see common recognition of fair standards.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, today offers an important corrective opportunity and an important step forward in this debate. I am extremely pleased to see the President of the Commission here and I hope that Mr Prodi, as President of the Commission, will assert his presidential leadership on a regular basis in that way on strategic issues such as enlargement. I therefore especially welcome his statement today. I accept Commissioner Verheugen's explanation that he was speaking in a German context and in a personal capacity. However, as the Commissioner responsible for enlargement, he does not now have the luxury of speaking in a personal capacity. The fundamental problem when we give mixed messages or perhaps poorly expressed or ill-judged messages is that we risk conveying the wrong message. From the way in which this interview was received and commented upon that has clearly happened here. On the matter of a referendum I accept his explanation. However the underlying thesis is correct. We do need to take the public with us and if that was his point it is a valid one. As to Member States leaving the Commission to do the dirty work, I hope that does not refer to the work of enlargement. I am sure that implication was not intended. (Applause) If, Commissioner, you meant that some statesmen in our governments like to go on central European tours and announce that enlargement is on its way but then leave the details to the Commission, you should say so plainly and we will back you up when you confront the Council with this. (Applause) I would ask the Commissioner in fairness to withdraw his remarks on the European Parliament finding itself unanimous in only one respect, namely in opposing the Commission. That cannot be substantiated. The Commissioner's relationship with our Parliament and its committees has always been constructive and positive and it should remain so. Such a slur on our interinstitutional relationship must not be allowed to stand. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I support what Mr Swoboda said about Macedonia and at the same time, wish to contradict him slightly. I think that we must definitely view Macedonia as a potential member of the European Union. But we cannot of course say that it is in fact already a candidate, for the simple reason that the Copenhagen criteria are just not being met in Macedonia. Therefore those political criteria must be fulfilled. For that reason, I think – and I should like to make a minor correction to what Mr Swoboda says – we should offer the prospect of possible membership, but only if, for example, that dreadful concept of a state-constituting nation disappears from the constitution and statutes of Macedonia. It is a huge obstacle, often in other countries too, to reaching a reasonable ethnic understanding between citizens. Surely we must be able to make Macedonia into an ordinary secular state and there are enough indications that the president of the country with his American experience understands that. Secondly, we as the European Union can do something ourselves. I remember very well from a previous period that a departing Danish Foreign Minister, Uffe Elleman-Jensen, surprised the House by exclaiming that the whole Council was sick of Greece’s behaviour towards Macedonia. That caused a row. But I believe it was an extremely salutary expression of feeling, particularly since the Council could after all exert some pressure on Greece as a fellow-member and say : conclude those negotiations, ensure that there is a reasonable solution, do not persist with measures that are in fact humiliating for Macedonia. We can also ensure from outside that destabilising effects which were in fact at issue in those negotiations, are removed. Mr President, I would urge the Council to look into its own heart and say to its own members: friends, what can we do? Stop going on endlessly about that name, that flag, etc. We can also ask the Macedonians to achieve a European approach to their own constitutional structure. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to become normal members of the European Union in the future.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to state that I voted for the Paulsen report and above all for Amendment No 10. I basically believe that we need to pay close attention to hygiene regulations and enforce them very strictly, and that standards need to be raised accordingly. Nevertheless it does not make sense for us to destroy reusable waste – and that is what catering waste is – and by destroying it to create further costs for the public, when we could in fact make use of it in a sensible way. I am pleased that the European Parliament has agreed with this approach, even if it has been by a narrow margin. I hope that as things proceed we will also get the necessary agreement of the Commission that reusable waste should not be indiscriminately destroyed, which also involves extra costs, but that it should be possible to use it and recycle it.

Political group: PPE-DE
Thank you for your answer, Mr President, but the question went rather further. We monitor, and we are familiar with, the work done by the Commission and the Council on the Erika 1 package, but regarding this strait, which is notorious in the two countries concerned and within the European Union as a particularly tricky passage, one often used by large vessels in order to gain just a few hours at the risk of some old tub’s running aground and causing a disaster, I should like to know, and more especially the inhabitants of Corsica and Sardinia would like to know, if it will be at all possible, and if you have any such plans, to issue a ban, pure and simple, on large vessels, containers, using the Strait of Bonifacio.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group supports the line taken by the rapporteur, as indeed it did at first reading and also in the discussions and votes in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The most contentious points, namely environmental noise around airports and also military airbases, are no longer on the table at this reading. The Joint Statement lags behind the precise formulations of the Commission's proposal, but a long way behind Parliament's requirements for the European noise abatement policy. For example, the Joint Statement has deleted all the fixed dates indicating the deadlines from which the noise maps have to be worked out and approved. The same applies to the action plans. My group therefore considers that all amendments which reintroduce these precise dates should be agreed and accepted as a matter of urgency. Information is another point. Amendment No 22 says that the Member States must ensure that the noise maps and action plans are posted on the Internet two months at the latest after being approved. We think this is very important. I believe that we can have general debates about how we bring Europe and its citizens closer together if we do not then shy away from very definite political proposals for putting information policy into action. It is my view – one shared with both the speakers who preceded me – that the key question is whether any request by us for subsidiary directives will be successful. I consider it to be progress in itself that there are harmonised methods of noise measurement and common noise indicators. Such things can, though, be only the beginning. What are we to say to people if we point out the problem but take no definite steps to solve it? I believe that a time limit is needed here. We cannot wait indefinitely for the next steps in this field to be taken. It is for this reason that my group has joined with the in signing the request for such subsidiary directives to be presented within three years.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, just like the previous speaker, I believe there are no sustainable arguments for permitting the irradiation of food other than spices. Instead, quite a few Member States should be exercising tighter control over the irradiation of food that ought not to be irradiated. We wish to tighten up the report by adopting Amendments Nos 2 and 3 and so making these constitute Parliament’s position. There is an obvious risk of irradiation’s being used to conceal poor hygiene or the fact that food is too old really to be put on the market. We have no reason to permit methods that make this possible. It is also a fact that, if it is irradiated so that it will keep longer, food is in danger of losing some of its nutritional value and so becoming less good for consumers. I believe that consumers are thereby in a way being tricked into buying things that are not of the same quality. It is also partly a question of what kind of agricultural and food policy we are to have. Are we to have extremely large-scale production of goods transported over very long distances and with long shelf-lives, or are we to develop an agricultural and food policy based upon most food’s being produced locally and delivered and consumed within reasonable periods? We recommend the latter alternative.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Thanks to the President-in-Office for that answer, and indeed for the support of his own government in respect of this point. It was interesting to see that the recent meeting of four Member States on defence, convened by Mr Verhofstadt, supported the idea of an agency, just as the original proposal that came forward at Le Touquet was supported by my own Prime Minister, Tony Blair and also by Jacques Chirac. Whatever differences exist as regards perspectives about defence cooperation in the European Union, it seems this is something that could unite us. I wonder if the President-in-Office foresees any further progress on this issue during the remainder of his presidency, and whether he could try and put a timescale on how much progress we can make in bringing forward this idea?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, every parliament needs a Richard Corbett – a man whose knowledge of and commitment to the Rules of Procedure is beyond compare and, although my expertise is less than his, I fully share with Mr Corbett the belief that good rules make for sound democracy. The reform package that we have before us is not revolutionary, but it amounts to a sensible and incremental change which will contribute towards making this Parliament far more mature, efficient and transparent. I trust that the conservatism that is sometimes displayed by representatives of the PPE and Groups on this question will not, at this late stage, hinder the drive towards reform. That would be an incredibly poor signal to send out to the Convention and would seriously weaken the standing of our parliamentary delegation. The puts great stress on trying to make plenary sessions livelier. That is why we propose an amendment to make the 'catch-the-eye' procedure mandatory rather than voluntary, along with another amendment to ensure that it is practical to interrupt speakers without penalising their speaking time. We need more drama in this place, more critical exchanges and a better balance between the necessary privileges of the party groups and the rights of individual members to express themselves.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, Rule 6(1) of our Rules of Procedure lays down that, in relation to petitions, the President must announce them to Parliament and refer the issue to the competent committee. On 12 July 2000, the president of the Spanish Supreme Court sent a petition to the European Parliament requesting the waiver of the immunity of the Italian Members of the European Parliament, Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri, because of alleged offences concerning the purchase of a Spanish television channel and the non-payment of taxes to the Spanish inland revenue. Yesterday I asked the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market whether she was aware of the issue and she told me that she had received no information about it. Given the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to ask Parliament’s President what has been done in relation to this petition and to add that, last Monday, the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that it had only become aware of the issue through the newspapers.

Political group: PSE
In an ΕU created at the demand of the big multinationals and which serves their interests, there can be no social prosperity for the working classes and no safeguarding of the rights of workers, women, young people, the disabled or the elderly. The proof is that approximately one quarter of the population in the ΕU is living below the poverty line. The interest in wiping out poverty is hypocritical. The objective is to conceal the barbarity of capitalist exploitation behind ‘charity’ programmes and to avoid acute social outbursts. The so-called social agenda is being implemented by extending flexibility and temporary work, by prolonging active working life, with lifelong learning, by reducing wages and linking them to productivity and by cutting back on the welfare state and social protection and on public spending on health and education. Capitalism needs hoards of unemployed, which is why the objective of full employment is a total misnomer. Especially today, under conditions of unbridled competition and company restructurings and relocations, which lead to mass job losses. An attempt is being made to untie this Gordian knot with part-time and temporary employment and by sharing jobs between several workers. We therefore call on the workers, the working classes and the progressive radical forces in the countries of the ΕU to fight against the choices being made by the monopolies and to claim a different, pro-grass roots policy. Report: Lynne (A5-0270/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, a moment ago, our President reminded us of Jean Monnet and his words: ‘We are not united states, we are united people’. I should like to change this to: ‘We are united peoples’. Yesterday, we welcomed ten new countries, and ten new flags of ten new Member States are now outside. Today, I should like to call your attention to the flags of the regions and nations that were not fortunate enough to become a state. The course of history has decided that at present, some big countries are being accompanied ...

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all, I commend my colleague, Mrs Attwooll for the work she has done in this report. Although we are only dealing with an extension of MAGP IV for one year, the Commission proposals seek to reduce over-fishing and achieve the 40% reduction in effort across the EU fleet which they have been consistently pointing out is absolutely essential, if we are to have any hope of a sustainable industry in the future. I know that some controversy has arisen – and Mrs Attwooll mentioned this – over the question of aid for measures to improve safety in navigation; working conditions; and hygiene on board fishing vessels. It goes without saying that all of us wish to see our fishermen working in the safest, cleanest and most secure conditions. But there is no doubt that such aid has been abused in the past to increase fishing effort, leading to further over-exploitation of dwindling fish stocks. It seems to me pointless that we try to achieve a reduction in over-fishing as a core policy objective on the one hand, while continuing to facilitate cheating at the taxpayer's expense on the other. The whole point of the MAGP is to reduce fishing effort and bring it into better balance with the existing fish stocks. Only this week the need for continued for vigilance in this area was again highlighted with the publication of the ICES report on the prospects for catches in 2002. They point out that a number of fish stocks remain in a state of great jeopardy, particularly cod, although they also point out that there have been slight improvements in haddock and whiting stocks in the North Sea. In that respect I was horrified to read that Danish fisheries inspectors last month boarded a Danish industrial fishing boat and discovered 114 tonnes of juvenile cod in a 543 tonne total catch that was supposed to be composed entirely of sand eels. Pulverising valuable young haddock into fishmeal to feed to salmon in the fish farming sector is complete madness. It is a crime against everything we are trying to achieve. I hope that when we come to vote on this report later today, we bear in mind that the whole point of MAGP philosophy is to reduce over-exploitation and nothing we do in applying public aid to the EU fleet should undermine that principle.

Political group: PPE-DE