GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we succeed in adopting these recommendations to the Council by a large majority here in the European Parliament, we shall not only have sent out a signal; we shall also have taken absolutely decisive action against the cynical, murderous and anti-democratic terrorism that has been rearing its ugly head most conspicuously in Spain but in other European countries too. The aims of this package which Mr Watson has proposed, range from harmonisation of laws and regulations to improvement of judicial assistance, from the creation of a European search and arrest warrant to provision for the compensation of victims, and the Member States of the European Union should not only use it to combat the familiar forms of terrorism but should also apply it against the new forms of terror to which we were introduced at the last summit meeting and which I fear will resurface at similar events in the future. The debate on these new forms of terrorism has left a lot to be desired. There has been no discussion about the safety of the innocent people who have been exposed to acts of violence, nor has there been any discussion about protecting property from destruction by violent activists and those who are incited to violence, about the police officers who have been seriously wounded or about either the compensation of victims or international police cooperation. Too little has also been said about the background, about the sources from which these terrorists draw their support and their funding and about the political orchestrators of terrorist activities. It has been a diluted discussion. This terrorism that is threatening to sprout up again here, however, is increasingly international and global in character; its perpetrators are not truly engaged in the globalisation debate that needs to be pursued but are merely using the debate as a vehicle for acts of terror against governments, against state institutions – in short, against our democratic system. I therefore expect us to confront terrorism in both its old and new forms with the utmost vigour for the sake of the people, the security and the stability of our countries, to press our case uncompromisingly within the European Union, being ever mindful of those who have already fallen victim to this terrorism. I ask you all to give your overwhelming support to this excellently prepared package of measures, not only for the sake of Spain but also in the interests of Europe, its stability and the security of its people. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to express our wholehearted support for Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's motion. We all want to ensure that the people in our Member States are not exposed to excessive noise, but we also want this whole question to be regulated by law. To that end, I ask you to support the motion proposed by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, if we can conclude this debate with a vote that confirms the broad consensus that we have reached to date on this matter, I wish to call on the parliamentary groups not to change the report. We will be renewing our commitment to the fight against terrorism and we will be ending a process which, as Mr de Miguel has reminded us, began in the European Parliament. By doing so, we would be turning one of the most illustrious pages in the history of this House. We now hope to see a rapid transposition of these measures so that they are effective, so that decisions are taken that are able to freeze the assets of European terrorist groups and so that efforts are coordinated in the fight against terrorism, not only between Member States, as has happened most notably between Spain and France in recent times, but also between the competent bodies that have been established within the European Union. Mr President, I am convinced that with this process, we will not only be responding to a demand expressed very firmly by Europe’s citizens, but we will also be making an invaluable contribution to the cause of freedom. There is no greater risk to the freedom of thought, of expression and to the right to life itself, than violence expressed through terrorism. Every democratic State has an obligation to provide justice with instruments such as those we are discussing today, which will make its work more effective. Under the Rule of Law, democratic dialogue must be based on mutual trust and non-violence, with the aim of defending democracy, precisely as we stated in one of the report’s sections on the Union’s role in the fight against terrorism. To do anything else, ladies and gentlemen, would be to accept that the laws approved by democratically-elected parliaments should change to please the murderers and for them to stop killing; this hope, ladies and gentlemen, Mr President, should be rejected because it is antidemocratic and immoral.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the ageing of the European population means that we will have huge problems when it comes to footing the bill for our statutory pension schemes. Member States where supplementary schemes are under-developed compared to statutory pension schemes will feel the pinch most. Unfortunately, we are forced to note that this is the case for the majority of Member States. A developed collective system of supplementary pensions, compulsory if so required by the relevant Member State, considerably reduces the dependence on demographic factors and enables the pension fund, in the role of investor, to derive maximum benefit from the possibilities which financial markets have to offer. Needless to say, the objective of making employees more mobile and flexible within a large single European market and the euro zone will inevitably lead to interest in supplementary pension schemes. One of the philosophies underlying the European Union and the Monetary Union requires that the internal market should be used to the full. As such, you, as a worker, should be able to take your accumulated pension rights with you to another European country. To this end, we need to develop a legal framework at European level at the earliest opportunity. Why should a German employee, for example, have to wait ten years before he has built up a pension and a Dutch person only one year? As such, this German person suffers a considerable handicap with regard to mobility. What is more, the fiscal treatment of pensions at the time when contributions are made and at the time of payout should be brought into line. Commissioner, you deal with taxes, what is the latest on this score? I have to say that this parliamentary discussion seems to be more about a complete harmonisation than coordination. This, unfortunately, is at the expense of Member States which already have their house in order. One such country is the Netherlands, initially presented as a role model for all other Member States and gradually relegated to curiosity status. But the Dutch system is a worthy system which accepts old age, surviving dependants and vulnerable groups within the labour market as they are. The supplementary pension scheme is based on collective feeling and solidarity. This enables SMBs – and specifically SMBs with reference to the UK MEPs – to cover biometric risks at relatively low cost. Top of the list are payability and security, which is not the case for the proposals submitted by some MEPs. Mr Bolkestein, how do you intend to bring the discussion back to the crux of the matter, namely mobile pensions for mobile people?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I regret the fact that this debate is not to be followed by a resolution, as it is vital for Parliament to send a political signal to the general public regarding this serious international crisis triggered off by the United States’ warmongering diplomacy. That has demonstrated to a ridiculous extent what virtually the entire international community condemned as the real driving force behind this unilateral aggression, as my colleagues in the Group had already pointed out. These measures, however, cannot be reduced to mere verbal condemnation. In the fact of this global hegemonic power, the credibility, and even the future, of the UN has received a dangerous blow and we cannot remain indifferent to this. It has had a knock-on effect on the political goals of our Community project too, on its attempt to unite the voices of Europe in both a spirit of consensus and international legitimacy. Twenty-four million souls are abandoned to their sorry fate, without even a guarantee that their daily needs will be met. This is indeed a very, very serious hour and a European initiative is urgently required. We cannot content ourselves with becoming a reconstruction agency, although that task is absolutely necessary and urgent. The jeopardising of a potential historic turning point in the international situation has now become more than just a slick, journalistic phrase. The threat is very real and seems to be being overlooked in this Chamber. It is therefore up to this enlarged Parliament, including the observers from the new Member countries, to realise that the European Union must propose a more mature, more long-term alternative in light of the United States’ opportunistic and mercenary calculations. It is up to us to consider, for instance, the legalist voices, such as France, Germany and Belgium, and establish a common, united position. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, the UN must be restored to its place at the centre of the international negotiating mechanism.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Within the meaning of the Rules of Procedure I have the right to put it. It relates to Question No 17 and says: Mr President-in-Office of the Council, following this tragedy, has the European Union acted in relation to Morocco in view of the fact that the Kingdom of Morocco has reacted positively through the measures it has adopted recently?

Political group: PSE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. – Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for a thorough piece of work, a reanalysis of a proposal that Mrs Hedkvist Petersen handled so capably some months ago and in which I was also involved. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, with Mrs Hedkvist Petersen's report and also with Mr Vermeer, has given a lot of support to the approach the Commission has taken. We did not feel it was necessary to table any substantive amendments to the framework directive because we felt that it covered the strategy that Parliament had laid down. Mr Vermeer has made some worthwhile improvements, but without in any way altering the substance of it. That is important and I agree with his analysis that we should not support the other amendments. I am delighted that the Commission is accepting those so we can move ahead as quickly as possible. I would like to make one or two comments on our two proposed amendments, one of which the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism was kind enough to accept, and also some broader points about the whole proposal. First of all the recital that we proposed focuses very much on the importance of active safety measures, working with passive safety measures, in delivering the overall safety improvements that we want. There have been enormous improvements in the technology over the past few months since we first looked at this. I declare an interest in this in that I am an automotive engineer and I have driven some of the cars with that technology. It is important to emphasise the practical nature of this. If we have technologies that will reduce collision speeds by sensing impending impacts, or even alter the direction of the impact, it will make a very substantial improvement. There are some people in this House who seem to think that the requirements are somehow a pushover. I just want to conclude by relating a recent experience when I went to the Young Designers Exhibition at Coventry University to see what young designers were looking at in car designs for the future. It will interest colleagues from this committee to know that many of those young designers were designing pedestrian-friendly cars but, in order to meet the EEVC Stage II tests, the only way they could meet those requirements was by putting the engine at the back of the car so as to leave enough crush space at the front. Anybody who thinks that these Stage II tests are a pushover, or are easily attainable with current technology, needs to take a serious look at what is going on in the industry and not sit in this House drawing up unrealistic amendments.

Political group: PPE-DE
In connection with the account of the Court of Auditors’ annual report, it emerged that the Court of Auditors’ current President, Jan O. Karlsson, had taken steps against the person who had supplied the mass media with information about the content of the annual report. We Swedes have a lot to learn within the European partnership. The EU in turn has something to learn from the way we handle some things in Sweden. Openness and public access to official records are one such area. It is therefore unfortunate that, instead of upholding our traditions, Jan O. Karlsson should have chosen to adapt to what unfortunately applies in Brussels. There may be different views as to how far it was right or wrong of an official in the EU’s Court of Auditors to reveal in advance the contents of the annual report. What is really important, however, is that we should together fight for the right to do this. We are concerned here with the freedom to supply information which the Government so often says it wants to uphold in the EU context. It is, to say the least, worrying that the Swedish head of the EU’s Court of Auditors should choose to adapt to the worst aspects of the EU administration’s culture, namely secrecy and the desire for revenge upon employees who choose to speak out. In the Swedish constitution and in Swedish debate, the freedom to supply information is acknowledged as an indispensable part of any effective supervision of the democratic and public system. We believe that this is important for democracy. We think there is a need for more EU employees who dare to reveal cheating and irregularities. For each time an EU official is reprimanded because of his openness, we lose ground in our work for an open EU. Against the background of the above, we have not been able to support the re-election of those Members who are at present Members of the Court of Auditors and who obviously consider that it is perfectly correct to act in this way. We have therefore chosen to abstain from voting when it comes to appointing Giorgio Clemente, Jørgen Mohr, Aunus Salmi and Jan O. Karlsson. - Murphy recommendation for second reading (A5-0099/1999)

Political group: ELDR
This report by Mr Pirker, which the Communist Party of Greece voted against, has started the ball rolling for the European Parliament to implement racist and xenophobic resolutions to keep immigrants out of the ΕU. The Seville Council decided to create yet another repressive supranational mechanism, the European Corps of Border Guards. However, the immediate creation of such a corps clashes with the Member States’ constitutions, which is why the Commission has decided on a hybrid solution which it refers to as ‘common services to control external borders’. It has also been decided to incorporate the Common Manual for External Borders – yet another purely police manual – into Community legislation, once it has been revised and made even more anti-democratic. Finally, there are even plans to use satellites and radar to monitor the EU's borders, by making use of the Galileo satellite navigation system, while yet another service has been added to the repertoire of monitoring and policing services, the SCIFA+, which will operate as a steering body responsible for coordination. What is worrying is that the report adopted by the European Parliament is even more autocratic than the Commission communication. The report equates illegal immigration, which it quotes as an example of a current threat, with organised crime, accepts the propaganda about ‘new risk scenarios’, criticises the delay in setting up the Border Guard etc.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I also welcome today's vote on copyright and the information society. This has been a very controversial and difficult area to legislate in but today we have achieved a victory for common sense. We can be confident that in our vote we are providing – for example, in Amendment No 5 – protection for rightholders against potential Internet piracy and we have also knocked out some amendments tabled by the Group which would have been very damaging for rightholders. At the same time we are not denying access of citizens to the brave new world of the information society and, in particular, to the more disadvantaged users and communities. Today's vote means that we can now sign up to the WIPO Treaty and we can give international copyright protection to our creative industries. The computer games industry in my own region represents a third of the computer games world market. We need to protect these industries which create jobs and boost our economy – not just locally, but in the European domain. We can now look forward to future reviews of legislation and the work of the contact committee to ensure that there is no violation or abuse of copyright on the Internet or any limitation on genuine private use or fair use.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, there is to be an international conference on 7 July on the “Colombia Plan” which is to bring donor countries together, in the context of the aid plan for that country, also known as the “Marshall Plan”. At the present time there are two different strategies on the table as regards such aid. One is a strategy from America aiming to increase police repression. Personally, and I think I may speak on behalf of my Group, we feel this approach is doomed to failure. Indeed this has already been demonstrated on several occasions. The other strategy, from Europe, which is intended to effect changes in culture, and which therefore represents a more preventative method, is, we think, a better solution and alternative policy. In any event, we think it important that the European Parliament should express its opinion on the subject in the few days before this conference.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to thank our rapporteur and congratulate him on the importance and the quality of the work he has done. This regulation setting up a European Food Authority will, I hope, help to restore the confidence of European consumers. It therefore seems to me to be extremely important that this authority, which should constitute the mainspring of the Union’s strategy on food safety, can become operational as rapidly as possible, and in any case by the beginning of next year. The rapporteur is right to emphasise the need to make a clear distinction between the tasks and responsibilities which will fall to the future authority and those which are the responsibility of the Commission. Thus it must be quite clear that, although the authority is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the rapid alert system, in other words that tool which is so essential in risk assessment, it is the Commission, in other words the political decision-making body, which has to retain the responsibility for risk management, in other words it must be in control of the measures to be taken. In the same way, it is necessary to state that, although one of the characteristics of the authority must be the scientific competence and independence of its experts, it does not actually have any political legitimacy of its own. In this respect, there are perhaps good grounds for regretting the fact that the name ‘agency’ has been dropped, because it was a better name to describe such a structure, whose powers must be of a technical or scientific nature and must on no account become regulatory or executive. This is why it seems to me relevant, as the Commission proposes, to place this authority under the triple tutelage of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. Finally, and in spite of everything, I should like to emphasise, as other Members have done before me, that unless we rethink our options and our common policies concerning agriculture, no authority, however effective, will ever be able to stem the tide of major crises like those that we have experienced recently.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, our group has evaluated both reports with positive results and would, in particular, like to emphasise the fact that we have all focused on the need to expand the programme's scope with a series of amendments – which, in actual fact, have led to another survey on discrimination – intended to guarantee equal treatment to all people, irrespective of their sex, race, ethnic origin, religion, personal convictions, age or sexual orientation. The Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party has assessed all this with positive results, particularly focusing on the activity of Parliament, which insisted, in addition and above all, on preventive action as well as good practice. We felt that the objectives relating to enhancing in-depth understanding of the issue and its new forms, scale and development and, most importantly, action supporting those who have to implement these good practices, were entirely convincing. Yet we were even more impressed by fact that, at the end of the report, provision was made for an evaluation of the outcome of the processes and programmes, for this is also a guarantee of fairness, impartiality and transparency. I would especially like to focus on the opportunities provided for the Member States, who have to concentrate on high-quality actions, to work autonomously. This means that, for the first time, a different line is being adopted: we are not doling out funding left, right and centre but evaluating the quality of the operations and insisting on high quality; the operations themselves must then be monitored and their results published. I feel that this is a highly positive and constructive process, considering, also, that the results can be made available to the public and used to improve the quality of subsequent actions. I too would like to touch on the issue of exception made for religious organisations. I am pleased that it has been raised in this House. In effect, I feel that this is a mistake and that the exemption warrants discussion and reflection. I would just like to highlight a point once and for all. In my country, Italy, a teacher colleague of mine who was Catholic by religion but taught in a State school was dismissed because she became pregnant, she did not have an abortion and she was not married. Given that such a thing is possible, I would ask you whether it would have happened if the religious authorities were not endowed with this discretionary power? I would add that, paradoxically, if this teacher had had an abortion, no-one would have realised anything and she would not have lost her job. Instead, having shown respect for the sanctity of life and her right to motherhood, she was dismissed, a victim of discrimination. This, in my opinion, is disgraceful. If she had been a man, I may add, she would not have had to worry about what she did in her private life since a way has not yet been found to make men pregnant!

Political group: ELDR