GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr Danielsson appears to be trying to incorporate an old Swedish expression into general EU jargon – you see, I do not think there is a good translation of ‘goddag yxskaft’ [literally ‘hello, axe handle’]. Mr Danielsson’s replies to question after question are like the complete non sequitur ‘goddag yxskaft’. My question was also one with a yes or no answer. I did not ask about police and a host of other pleasant or less pleasant, friendly or less friendly measures for civil crisis management. I asked a question about the recommendation, adopted by Parliament and passed on to the Council, for the Council to initiate a pilot study on a possible European peace corps. Does the Council intend to take any initiative on the basis of this recommendation? Yes or no? It is very easy to answer yes or no. But perhaps I should interpret the reply as a no, as with the previous question to which the answer was in fact no. In that case, Parliament, having unanimously adopted this recommendation, will draw its own conclusions as to how the Council intends to work with Parliament.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to draw your attention to the matters described by Mr Schulz and to endorse his request for the allegations to be examined immediately and the public and ourselves to be informed. Between 50 and 60 German MEPs have been maliciously accused of having wrongly drawn their daily allowance, allegations that I emphatically reject! The daily allowance is not remuneration for participation in the sessions. In addition to participating in the sessions, we all have innumerable other tasks to perform, which are not entered in any session schedule, and in order to be present for such works in Brussels or in Strasbourg daily allowances are needed to meet expenses. Accordingly, we cannot accept being defamed in this way. I once again emphatically reject the allegations. A Member of this House is exploiting his parliamentary rights in order to spy on colleagues in the most unworthy and disgusting way. (Applause) For this reason also, Mr President, I demand that these events be investigated immediately and that – as I have said – the public and we ourselves should be informed. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
I will continue the explanation of vote started by my colleague Mr Colom i Naval. There were people, however, such as Mr Stoiber, in such a prosperous region as Bavaria, who considered that it was in their electoral interest to name a price which might appear in a newspaper headline: a programme – with no legal basis, by the way – for cross-border cooperation with the candidate countries, funded with some of the money intended for fishing conversion. Demagoguery is contagious and others followed his example and the conversion programme was taken hostage, despite the fact that there were already appropriations for cross-border cooperation, at least in B5-3003, B5-0510, B2-0141, B3-1010, B3-1021 or B3-0306. I would like to stress that we are in favour of the intention to prepare these regions and that they have always had our support. What we are not satisfied with is the fact that it is done to the detriment of the regions affected by an unexpected conversion. And, although the resolution states that in 1999 it was not envisaged that enlargement could have consequences for the bordering Community regions, this is not the case. In Germany, for example, the border States will have Community aid of more than EUR 10.5 billion. We have rarely seen such a miserly and nationalistic spectacle in this House! This would be typical of the Council. We voted in favour, but without enthusiasm. We did so because we do not want to sacrifice those poor regions of the Iberian coast, but also out of solidarity with these regions and also with those bordering the candidate countries, a solidarity which has been sadly lacking in this negotiation. - Peijs report (A5-0453/2001)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am not happy with the reply by the President-in-Office of the Council, because I was asking him about the humanitarian situation of five thousand persons currently living in Spain in wretched conditions.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The previous speaker’s intervention was not translated properly because it was delivered too quickly, so I would ask future speakers to speak more slowly so that the interpreters can keep up.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I wonder whether history is repeating itself in Indonesia. The bloody confrontations between Muslims and Christians are jeopardising safety within the Moluccas. Thousands of people have been killed or have taken refuge, and the new fragile democratisation process, which has been initiated so ambitiously by the Wahid government, is under enormous threat. This is reminiscent of East Timor only a few months ago. As an MEP visiting with the observation delegation, I saw for myself how harrowing the effects of this can be. We need to realise that the violence within the Moluccas is threatening stability within the entire region. It is therefore vital that the international community offer immediate financial and moral support in order to solve the problems in Indonesia. The international community also has a duty to monitor the situation closely on a permanent basis and help the government there to end this human tragedy in whatever way it can.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am sorry I am having to speak so often, but I have heard that anti-Fatuzzo amendments to the Rules of Procedure have been tabled, intended to restrict explanations of vote at each voting time to three, so I am forced to take the opportunities I still have left for explanations in these last few days. Now, I have voted for this Cederschiöld report because one of the worst dangers threatening us is computer crime. However, I wonder why we do not pay consultants, the computer criminals, to draw the poison from the secrets of computer crime so that we could better combat this ugly habit which too many people in Europe have. - Bösch Report (A5-0280/2001)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is the Commission's big moment that is what I would like to call out to you. The Nice Summit brought no progress in the protection of the Union's financial interests either. It is now crucial for the Commission very rapidly to put forward resolute and imaginative proposals so that we can move ahead within the existing legal framework. Mrs Theato's excellent report points to a number of options. It once again confirms the proposal set out in the report by the five independent experts on the reform of the Commission, namely that it is possible to set up a European Public Prosecutor's Office on the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam. As early as May, this Parliament called on the Commission to present proposals for a first stage, during which the European Public Prosecutor would be responsible only for offences and crimes committed by members and officials of the EU institutions against the financial interests of the Union. Its task would be to direct the relevant OLAF investigations and to make it easier for the competent national courts to prosecute these crimes. I am sure, Commissioner, that once this first step is taken, the discussion about the European Public Prosecutor's Office will no longer seem like a religious war between those for and those against, which has blocked all progress so far. And the Commission has this chance to take a first step, especially after Nice. Mrs Schreyer, you have our full support if you take this first step. The previous speakers have already had quite a lot to say on the question of OLAF. The Supervisory Committee's latest and very serious opinion on recruitment has also been quoted. Mrs Schreyer, you have repeatedly emphasised to this House that as the Commissioner responsible for fighting fraud you see it as your special task to guarantee OLAF's independence. Please tell us whether you do or do not support Mr Brüner on this crucial issue. We know that the Commission discussed this question at its last meeting, without coming to a decision. Do tell us what you think will happen now on and how we can get out of this impasse!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Marinho on his excellent work on this report and say that we are all aware of how sensitive and how incontrovertibly important issues such as asylum policy, measures to combat crime, the improvement of external border controls and the fight against terrorism are for the Member States. Nevertheless, I would say that we also all understand now that common problems require common solutions, that to resolve them effectively and coherently, apart from the national dimension, the necessary European dimension must also be in place. The main objectives of police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters in the European Union are the fight against transnational organised crime and the approximation of legal and statutory provisions. Nevertheless, in the field of judicial cooperation, Schengen has concentrated its efforts on ensuring that requests for extradition are rapidly dealt with by means of the Schengen Information System (SIS). The Swedish initiative that we are considering today does not contain, as Mr Marinho has already stated, major substantive provisions, specifically in the field of extradition, and seeks mainly to clarify the relationship between the various positions on extradition at European Union level and involve Iceland and Norway in the implementation of these provisions. It is crucial that we make the area of justice and security in Europe a reality. The events of 11 September clearly demonstrate the need to conduct the fight against terrorism not only by military means, but also with judicial instruments. It is also worth pointing out that the European Union’s strategy for the beginning of the new millennium, the prevention and control of organised crime, already envisaged the possibility of a single legal area for extradition being created at European level. The events of 11 September only reinforced the urgency and the need for such a decision. This is why the Justice and Home Affairs Council took the decision, on 20 September, as part of its objective of combating terrorism, to replace the extradition process within the Union with a simple process of handing over the perpetrators of such crimes, which will render obsolete all laws on extradition currently in force, as has already been stated, and will involve the removal and replacement of the two conventions on extradition through the mutual recognition of court sentences and through simply handing over the perpetrator of the crime, thereby creating the single European area for extradition, the need for which we also wish to highlight.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I welcome the report as it raises many important issues as we work towards a comprehensive and a safe food policy in the EU. Control of infectious diseases goes hand in hand with proper monitoring. Close consideration should be given to how infectious diseases are monitored by European Union institutions. We must likewise question the methods of countries outside the EU and impose stricter import controls like those carried out in Australia and New Zealand. However, we must remember, if regulations are drawn up, that it is important to impose penalties on Member States which fail to implement EU legislation on feed and foodstuffs, otherwise regulations are not worth the paper they are written on. I call on Members to let common sense prevail. Of course we need to test animals for BSE, but let us base the tests on sound scientific practices. There is no proof that testing animals at 24 months is foolproof. On the contrary, animals can develop BSE after 24 months. I have had no satisfactory answers as to what this calculation is based upon. The 30-month threshold currently imposed seems to be working. The forecasts are that the UK will be BSE-free by 2005, and this has been achieved using the 30-month threshold. Meat under 30 months can now be exported from the UK and it is true to say that it has proved to be a safe product for the consumer. Another concern is the compulsory testing of sheep. Again I urge caution and call again on sound scientific evidence. The whole UK flock was nearly wiped out last year because of the discovery of BSE in sheep. However, luckily someone questioned the validity of the findings and it was then discovered that the test was actually carried out on a cow's brain after all. This episode did little to restore farmers' confidence in proper scientific research. We need to develop a comprehensive animal health strategy and ask ourselves what we have learned from BSE. The main thing, without a doubt, is not to tamper with nature on ethical grounds. Herbivores must not be made to eat meat or fishmeal. However, we must now concentrate on the future and work on a policy and strategy to undo the damage to the food chain. Finally, the farming community has suffered a great blow over the past few years. Let us work together now towards a food safety policy and a reform of the common agricultural policy which moves us away from a so-called consumer-led policy that led to intensification – but let us not move either to a consumer-led policy based on unfounded theories. We must regain consumer confidence by producing a policy that will embrace all aspects.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy, the Commission has decided to move ahead with an amendment to the regulation on the structural policy of fisheries, laying down emergency measures for the destruction of vessels and even providing for an increase in premiums for scrapping, despite the fact that Europe is currently in a period of budgetary restrictions. In our joint debate on this proposal, I should first of all like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna and underline the remarkable quality of the work he has submitted for our consideration. Like the rapporteur, I acknowledge that the Commission proposal is largely unacceptable. Without calling into question the entire concept of vessel scrapping, I must stress the irreversible nature of this measure and draw attention to its enormous socio-economic costs in the Member State that I represent and especially in my home region, the Algarve. This is the reality of the situation in Portugal: fifty thousand jobs in the fisheries sector, 90% of vessels are old and small and are engaged in traditional forms of fishing. I would point out that there are other measures that are not irreversible and which will cause less upset in achieving a balance between fleet capacity and available fish resources. Portugal has been extremely committed to fulfilling and even exceeding its targets for the multi-annual guidance plans, unlike other Member States, which have made no effort or have even increased their fleet capacity, with total impunity. Portugal is becoming increasingly concerned to see the Commission ignoring this situation, rejecting inspections and continuing blindly to ask all Member States to make the same sacrifices. Returning to the Commission proposal, the sudden redirection of funds from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), raises serious doubts at the legal, financial and budgetary levels. It is therefore becoming unjustifiable at all levels to reprogramme funds already earmarked for the period until 2006 and which have been planned with the national and regional bodies and the economic and social operators. As the rapporteur quite rightly said, this Commission proposal appears, more than anything, to be a leap in the dark. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am entirely in favour of the activities of the European Ombudsman and what he has been doing over the past few years, as set out in this report. The truth is that many European citizens do not know their rights, do not know what they can do on the basis of European directives and, above all, think that European directives and regulations are not European. They are convinced they are Italian laws, and I do not think that is a good thing. I therefore propose to the European Ombudsman to insist, and this Parliament to accept my request, that European directives and regulations are called ‘European laws’ when incorporated into national legislation. - Almeida Garrett Report (A5-0240/2001) - Perry Report (A5-0245/2001) Dehousse , – (FR) Mr Perry’s report marks the happy and constructive end to 15 months of calm and continuous work by the European Parliament. It was on 11 April 2000 that the European Ombudsman, Mr Jacob Söderman, charged Parliament with the innovative project of a code of good administrative conduct applying to all the institutions and bodies of the European Community. It is this code that has been approved this morning. In order to achieve this result, with the practically unanimous assent of the European Parliament, several obstacles have had to be overcome. First of all, like most legislative assemblies, we had to prevent a conflict of responsibilities between our different committees as, depending on the approach, four of them could be declared to be responsible for the whole of the proposal. We succeeded in overcoming this risk. Next we needed to find a sound and undisputed legal basis for adopting the code. This is what the Legal Committee applied itself to doing, beyond the traditional disputes and opposition between the groups, and the more discrete but no less acute disputes between nationalities. I am delighted to have been able to contribute to it through an opinion that was very open to the expression of this large constructive majority. Today the European Parliament wished to both strengthen and simplify the rights of European citizens with regard to the Community’s administrative actions. It has managed to do so as the code adopted contains significant new elements, the importance of which we will gradually discover. Simplification, however, is just as important as it prevents an endless breakdown of all citizens’ rights, rights which would actually lose their importance if they differed in every case. I am happy to have been able to contribute through my vote in favour to this significant advance for European citizenship.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish, on behalf of my group, to make a number of short points on institutional questions that have arisen from the historic Copenhagen Summit. Firstly, the agreement that the new Commission should take office on 1 November. I welcome that agreement, but it must be clear – which it is – that the new Parliament must be the one to approve the new President and Commission. The details of this must be worked out, as Mr Barón Crespo said earlier, in an interinstitutional agreement between our institutions. I would like to see November become the permanent changeover date. Why should we, every five years, have a half-year period where the EU's work comes almost to a halt, while we first have the European elections and then an outgoing Commission that needs to be replaced by a new one that can only start work the following year in January? It would be good to introduce this on a permanent basis and not just on this one-off occasion. Secondly, the issue of the signing of the new Treaty that emerges from the Convention, containing a constitution. It is fair enough that this has been set for May, when the new Member States will legally be members and can sign that new Treaty. However, I would not like to see the new date being used as an excuse for having a long, drawn-out IGC from autumn 2003 to May 2004. We must keep to the idea of having a short, sharp IGC in autumn 2003, with the participation of the new Member States, to approve the results of the Convention, which we hope will not need to be changed. My third and final point is the question of the number of seats in this Parliament for Hungary and the Czech Republic. Under the Nice plans they are allocated two seats fewer than Belgium, Portugal and Greece – although those countries have a comparable population with Hungary and the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic and Hungary are right to ask for equality. Whether that is achieved by cutting the number of seats for the three current states – which may be difficult – or by raising the number for Hungary and the Czech Republic, the issue must be addressed in the Accession Treaty.

Political group: PSE
Public tenders have for a long time been considered a panacea. On the one hand, they are an alternative to nepotism, the awarding of public contracts to entrepreneurs who are friendly with politicians or high officials. On the other, they are intended to bring to an end the production and provision of services by companies that are owned by the government itself, and so to enable private companies to access new markets. I have already indicated – at first reading on 17 January 2002 – that I agree with the first intention but not with the second, which renders governments increasingly more dependent on companies. The damage can only be limited by means of all kinds of bureaucratic rules which will, however, remain unknown to many and will therefore be broken on a regular basis. In fact, the Dutch employers' organisation VNO-NCW has requested not to make the tender directives more far-reaching by adding 'a multitude of social and environmental criteria'. In its opinion, putting out to tender is 'a purely economic process which should not be contaminated so as to achieve other goals'. Even the rapporteur himself has already deleted a number of points on the subject of social protection and environment. I reject this approach. I do, however, share the rapporteur's view that the schoolbooks market does not function across borders and is not open to free competition, so that it is thus preferable not to lay down rules that assume that this is the case.

Political group: GUE-NGL
In Europe we thought that tuberculosis no longer existed, and we were all completely unprepared for the development of the new disease AIDS or the increase in malaria heading in our direction on account of global warming. We now know that these diseases are continuing to spread and are creating huge numbers of victims. About 40 million people worldwide are infected with HIV/AIDS, a billion new cases of TB are expected over the next 20 years and 40% of people run the risk of contracting malaria. In Sub-Saharan Africa the average life expectancy has dropped to 47 years, mainly because many young people are dying and children are having to grow up without parents. Under these dramatic circumstances those people who generally want to extend freedom in the market and restrict government support are also agreeing to a significant European contribution to the World Fund to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Leaving it to the market has only resulted in there being no medicines available for those who need them most: the poor in the developing countries. This proposal, which received unanimous support in the three committees concerned, recognises the failures of the market as a tool for combating these three widespread diseases, which are particularly prevalent in the developing countries. This is a significant step forward.

Political group: GUE-NGL