GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, we welcome this initiative as another small step along the road towards fulfilling the Tampere mandate to make the principle of mutual recognition the cornerstone of judicial cooperation. It is right that within a developing area of freedom, security and justice Member States ought to begin laying the foundations for establishing trust in each other's legal systems. We need an EU legislative initiative to facilitate efficient cross-border cooperation and improve upon previous international legal instruments, which are often cumbersome and bureaucratic. Indeed, the 1991 Convention on the enforcement of criminal sentences – which otherwise would be relevant here – is not yet in force some ten years after it was signed. It is right for the EU to base cooperation on the concept of executing the decision of the issuing State, rather than that of deciding whether or not to grant cooperation in response to a request. The other international convention – the 1970 Convention – contains 13 grounds on which a request can be refused, so we can understand why the system does not work at the moment. However, many of us in this House are concerned not to allow the principle of mutual recognition to undermine the rights of the individual and in this field generally it is essential that the legal safeguards outlined not only in the European Convention on Human Rights but also, I would say to Mr Blokland, in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – which ought to be legally enforceable – should be observed. My group would certainly agree with Mrs Cerdeira Morterero that we should use the existing system of contact points in the European Judicial Network, as it is pointless to keep reinventing the wheel with different systems of contact points for various initiatives. However, we have a core problem here: people who care about civil liberties – and here I include myself – are put on the spot about agreeing to measures of mutual recognition without having a comprehensive programme to raise the standard of observance of individual rights. My group believes that we need a comprehensive approach to this, and we are very much looking forward to the Commission White Paper on this subject. I have been reproached for agreeing to the European arrest warrant, while very strongly supporting individual rights. It is a challenge to all of us – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – to put in place those safeguards, because it is difficult to keep on agreeing until we have them. But my group believes that, with the Eurosceptics of the Right objecting to any cooperation in this field, we have to say that those of us who are not on the Right, who care about civil liberties, should agree to these measures but then put pressure on the Commission and the Council to have these citizens' safeguards.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I congratulate Mr Bowe on the report and on the positions assumed which, given the thorny nature of the issue of genetically modified organisms, is genuinely well-balanced. What is the conclusion? The conclusion is that rules and monitoring are necessary. I am sure that we will be able to find some point of contention – for example, the issues of traceability and labelling remain unresolved – but given the crucial need for regulation, I feel that this task has been more than adequately performed. It must also be remembered that there are many things at stake in this complex matter of genetically modified organisms: it could even be said that, from many points of view, the role of the European Union itself is at stake with regard to many of its forthcoming commitments, such as the World Trade Organisation reforms, the research programme we are about to launch, the development and employment programmes, the relations which will ensue from the creation of new markets, and the globalisation processes which will lead to the redefinition of economic processes. So, as far as GMOs are concerned, we must not forget that the situations in many different countries are different. I would mention, at random, China, South Africa and Mexico, which already grow genetically modified organisms, and other countries such as Cuba which we know are preparing to do so; then there are other countries again, such as Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines, which are extremely interested in the potential offered by biotechnologies. So the question is this: what role does the Union intend to play in a future which has already become present reality? I feel that the answer which is most relevant to the European Parliament's role can only be to set a course and establish a strategy which reflect a position of total involvement. This does not mean either accepting or rejecting, and still less bringing forward or extending the time frames. Above all, it means giving a sort of green light to all studies, applications or patents relating to biotechnologies. The Bowe report has more than succeeded in achieving this result.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, what Mr Bourlanges said just now about the lack of time in Strasbourg is somewhat exaggerated. If you look at yesterday's minutes, you will see that under Item 5 it says that 'the sitting was suspended at 11.30 awaiting voting time and resumed at 12.00'. So we had half an hour to spare. That time could have been used more profitably in this plenary session. Hence it is totally incorrect to state that the problem with Question Time to the Commission stemmed from our not having sufficient time because we no longer sit on Fridays.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Can someone please explain to me who makes the decision arbitrarily to change the time of the vote in this Parliament without a by-your-leave? We are told that a vote is going to happen at a certain time and it never seems to be the case. If it is possible to break a sitting for a formal sitting on the nail, why is it not possible to take the vote at the time which is announced without there being too much difficulty? Many Members of this House are getting fed up with these delays and want to know what the answer is. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, not only is it shocking that events of the kind that happened in Dover should occur in the first place, what is all the more shocking is that we only become aware of such happenings at all when they are on a certain scale. Tragic events of this kind happen to hundreds of people at borders, day after day. What you do not see, however, is any action on our part. We have been discussing the matter here for months and trying to outline a whole range of possibilities, but if you will forgive me for saying so, there is still no package of measures that will actually remedy the situation. Indeed I am delighted whenever the Council Presidency comes up with fresh proposals, and a great many proposals have also been produced on this occasion which are to be welcomed. However, it would be desirable if these proposals were to dovetail with each other. There have been a whole host of individual measures where the second measure has often been put in place before the first, instead of the other way around. What we need to do is to harmonise and coordinate these measures more effectively. Hence my call for these measures to at last be put into effect. I would like to briefly mention some very important points such as cooperation with the countries of origin, the implementation of the action plan, the need to at last put the agreements in place, criminal punishment for traffickers, i.e. the need to make EUROPOL stronger than it used to be, the need to draw up Community legislation governing immigration, and likewise asylum and the fight against abuse. Permit me to ask one question in this connection: we always discuss EURODAC at the beginning of a Presidency and we always hear that EURODAC will soon become a reality. We are now some years further down the line and there is still no sign of EURODAC. I would be delighted if you could actually manage to get EURODAC up and running. My question to you, Minister, is this: will you make it happen, and will you follow Parliament’s advice and leave the authority for implementation with the Commission, or are we to continue having discussions that head off in the wrong direction? Permit me just to add a second question. You have mentioned a seminar due to take place on 20 and 21 July, and this is to be welcomed with open arms. Are the parliamentarians invited to this as well, following the commendable example set by Portugal, when we were able to attend these conferences with representatives? Also, in view of Mr Jospin’s comments, permit me, as an Austrian, to ask whether Austrians will be invited to this conference.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, thank you for the outstanding way in which you have conducted the sitting. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party is extremely pleased with the outcome of the vote. We have addressed some of the things that had been preventing the development of the banking sector, but at the same time we have retained very important aspects of consumer protection and developed that too. I think that we have created a Directive that will enable increased cross-border trade within Europe in the future. I know that some people would have liked to vote in favour of provisions on mortgage credit, but I hope and ask that the Commission presents a proposal on this point, which is extremely difficult to regulate. My thanks to the President for giving me the floor, and for conducting the sitting so excellently.

Political group: ELDR
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Petitions. – Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, which, although it cannot be described as a large spending committee, has an important role: to protect the rights of citizens who appeal to this Parliament to look after their rights. We have two very modest requests of the budget which are contained within the Buitenweg report. One is that there should be a proper database so that citizens can follow their petitions through the Internet. We expect that to be up and running by the end of next year and we want there to be money for that. Secondly, in preparation for enlargement, whatever language regime we choose, preparations must be made to enable citizens of the applicant countries to petition this Parliament in their own language. Finally, I should like to make the point that the Committee on Petitions does not require money, but that it does require the support of Parliament, the Commission and the Council so that it can have access to documents. That is free. It does not cost anything. But I can tell you that at present there are a number of petitions – for instance the Lloyd's petition – concerning which the Commission and Council are refusing Parliament access to information.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is crucial that all employees are assured a decent working environment in order to guarantee that their health and safety is protected, which requires an organisation of working time that allows daily and weekly rest breaks, annual leave, holidays and other aspects. This is why an appropriate solution must be found to the problem of all workers in activities that were excluded from the scope of Directive 93, specifically in the area of transport, fishing and the activities of junior doctors. The truth is that, despite a positive proposal by Parliament, which sought to respond to these issues, the Council has insisted on an unacceptable position. This substantially reduces the initial proposals of the European Parliament, specifically the increase of the period for transposing the directive to all sectors from two to three years. The only exception made concerns junior doctors, for whom the period is extended from four to nine and possibly to twelve years. Apart from anything else, this also threatens the safety of the patients themselves who are examined by doctors who work excessively long hours. That is why we have voted against this agreement, since what we want, of course, is a better agreement.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the approach adopted for this directive reminds me of the Natura 2000 model, which is bound to result in massive restrictions on the use of large areas of land for economic purposes. This is something we should bear in mind during our discussions. The European railways alone estimate that they will need to spend EUR 20 million on the noise maps, which is the Commission's assessment of the entire cost of implementing the directive. The railways alone expect to spend that amount. I should also like to emphasise that small and medium-sized businesses cannot possibly afford the cost of producing these noise maps. I believe we should do better to switch to incentives. We ought to think about support initiatives which achieve the aim of restricting noise levels. It is also important that we think about the countries applying for accession to the EU. They too would like to be able to sleep peacefully but also to go about their work without disruption.

Political group: PPE-DE
The explanatory statement for this report welcomes the drop in unemployment at European level. However, there is no reason to welcome the figure of 13 million unemployed that the text gives, which is certainly underestimated and which, moreover, fails to take into account those who have to settle for precarious and badly paid employment. Moreover, for several months, the number of unemployed has again been rising in all the countries of the Union. How could it be otherwise, when the most powerful industrial groups on the continent are announcing considerable reductions in their workforce and closing their factories one after another? In these circumstances, talking about employment strategy, to quote the title of the report, might appear quite unsavoury to the millions of employees who are being thrown into poverty purely so that the companies making them redundant can give their shareholders higher dividends by paying fewer salaries. We voted against this text because its philosophy is that it is the sovereign right of employers to decide whether or not to keep jobs, while it is clear that, without corrective measures forcing companies to use their current or past profits to maintain jobs and salaries, the number of unemployed will continue to rise and poverty will continue to increase.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as we seem to be having a bit of a breather, I should like to ask Mr Corbett whether he feels that the voting procedure we have undertaken is in conformity with the new Rules of Procedure we drew up for this House to try and simplify voting. The amendments relating to Mr Nobilia's report, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, were voted in blocks. However, we are now having a very contentious, long vote on a report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which I believe is not in conformity with the Rules of Procedure. Now you are asking us to delay the final vote. Under which Rule are you doing that, Mr President?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteur for his report and the Commission for the fact that this proposal has finally been presented and will hopefully soon be put into effect. And I was so glad to hear Mr Nassauer use the word solidarity. I thought it was a good word until I realised what he meant. It was solidarity with ourselves. It is interesting that Mr Nassauer – and the Group, I assume – think that this proposal should primarily be about distributing the burden. I thought it was supposed primarily to be about saving people's lives, that is to say the lives of people who are victims of war or civil war or other similar events leading to mass displacement and the need for aid. It is, of course, absurd, really. The world's poorest countries in Asia and Africa do not need special rules on mass displacement, but that is what we need in the rich, well-organised EU. That is how matters stand, however. The authorities in our countries have not been able to demonstrate sufficient flexibility within the present rules, and this proposal is therefore clearly necessary. There are still a few problems with the proposal, I think, but, when all is said and done, my group will end up supporting the report and, thus, this initiative, because it is so patently necessary that we get it implemented quickly. And I will, at any event, do everything I can to prevent the issue of burden sharing’s being made into something which can turn victims of catastrophe into hostages in our own internal battles and our solidarity with ourselves. There is a need for solidarity in this world, not with ourselves but with the world outside.

Political group: PPE-DE
I warmly welcome last week's decision by the EU Defence and Foreign Ministers to establish a 60,000 strong Rapid Reaction Force. I am particularly pleased that the Irish Government is fully committed to this initiative and has pledged that 850 members of our defence forces will participate. Like my Fine Gael colleague, Mrs Doyle, I recognise that this does not represent the creation of a European army and before shrill voices are raised in my own country, which there will be, against Irish involvement, I would point out that participation is voluntary and on a case by case basis. Let me say this and let me respond to the comments of my other colleague Mr Van Orden. I believe that this latest venture is a very important first step to remedy the deficiencies in EU defence capabilities, which were so cruelly exposed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and also Kosovo. I believe that the lessons we learn in this latest development will serve us well in the future as we come to terms with the need to establish a European defence policy and capability, which in my view is as much an essential component of European integration as is the single currency. This experience will provide us with the opportunity to develop our own policies in such a way, despite Mr Van Orden's fears, that we do not unnecessarily antagonise our US allies or cause stresses and strains within NATO itself. EU policy must always be based on the partnership approach which seeks to share NATO assets, particularly planning and intelligence as well as hardware, rather than duplicate the structures of NATO, particularly when we share common objectives. I believe this experience will serve the EU well when we come to develop our own defence policy, and I sincerely hope that that will come sooner rather than later.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I cannot understand what the wants. I understand that some Members are against the directive we are going to vote on, but the vote in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms was in favour of this directive by a clear majority. This morning we held a very fruitful debate with the Commissioner and I believe that, almost a year after the Tampere Summit, not to approve the first proposed directive on harmonisation in justice and internal affairs in the field of immigration, presented to us by the Commission, would be inexplicable and there is no justification for it. I understand that there are Members who are totally against the right of immigrants to live as families, but that is not the majority position of this House, as was reflected in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms. I therefore ask that we go ahead with the vote on this Commission proposal.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, in December of last year, the Council rejected Parliament’s proposal for a broad definition of ‘family’. As one of the initiators of that proposal, I am naturally hurt by this. Nevertheless, the Council has left the door wide open for the free movement of all EU citizens, irrespective of their chosen form of partnership. In countries where registered partnerships are recognised by the national legal system, citizens of other countries who are in the same form of partnership must be recognised. Member States are expected to facilitate entry and residence for partners in a durable relationship and, if Member States refuse to admit a family member, they must give a justification for this. In my view, the major step forward that has been taken is that registered partnership is now recognised in EU legislation as a form of partnership for the first time. In addition, it has become clear that de facto relationships constitute a problem as regards free movement within the EU, and that countries can no longer ignore this fact. It will be interesting to see the case law based on this new Directive. This is certainly not the end of the fight, to echo Mrs Lambert’s words. A familiar question when considering the politics of this is always whether the glass is half full or half empty. In this case, in view of the discussions in the Council and the current political context, I think that we have extracted the best we could have achieved for EU citizens. I do not see it as giving in to blackmail by the Council, as do our friends Mr Turco and Mr Cappato in their minority opinion, but rather as counting my blessings. So be it, and my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur.

Political group: PSE