GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, will a European Public Prosecutor be able to abolish football fraud involving EU funds? I do not believe so. On the other hand, we can go a long way using the existing tools. An alternative to the European Public Prosecutor could be Eurojust, as proposed at the last Summit. In the way it is structured, Eurojust should correspond to Europol and support investigations into crimes. It is just such practical cooperation there is a need for. OLAF, Europol and the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters should be used fully and, when the Fraud Convention from 1995 is at long last ratified in the Member States, we can also achieve a lot with this. I nonetheless agree with the rapporteur that it is quite unacceptable that most Member States should still not have ratified this Agreement. It is simply too bad, and I can well understand why people are becoming impatient and demanding that we have a common European Public Prosecutor’s Office instead. However, it would be quite a mammoth task to establish such an Office. It is, after all, only the most serious crimes which would have consequences under criminal law. Ninety per cent of cases would be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence. Instead, there is a need for proper internal control and the ability to sack people more easily. We should alter the staff regulations and disciplinary procedures and, especially, change our practice. At the moment, Article 52 of the staff regulations concerning dismissal on the grounds of gross negligence is never used. Should we not make a point of cleaning up our own act and putting our own house in order before we plunge into constructing grand new institutions!

Political group: PSE
We are critical of parts of the report. In our opinion, there is too great an emphasis placed on what should be done to limit immigration, instead of highlighting the positive and necessary aspects of increased immigration, including the immigration of labour. In several cases, we should like to go further with regard to becoming more receptive to increased labour migration. We are particularly critical of Paragraph 15, which states that ‘immigrants are expected to respect the community of values – as set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – and to show a willingness to integrate into society in the Member States’. We do not currently require the citizens of Europe to respect the community of values referred to in the report. The question is how this paragraph will actually be interpreted. A wave of anti-Muslim sentiment is currently sweeping across Europe. In Sweden and in several other Member States, Muslims have been harassed. Politicians in individual Member States have, in our opinion, made some astonishing statements. Our concern is that the wording of Paragraph 15 is in danger of providing further scope for intolerance and xenophobia. There is a risk that the diversity of Europe could be lost.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I wanted to rise in connection with the previous item. I also have no wish to pass comment on the debates and events that took place in committee, nor on what apparently happened here last night. On behalf of my group, I would like to voice my support for your endeavours and simply make the point that we want a vote to be held on this issue. We believe this topic is far too important to vanish from the agenda, however that might happen.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Hughes, the fact that sound reports are being produced is excellent, in my view. I particularly endorse Mr Hughes’ report. I have heard him say once that in his opinion the analysis in the Commission communication was solid, but the actual detailing of it left something to be desired. I think I saw this in the EU reports today. In my view, the analysis is satisfactory, but certainly not solid, for the simple reason that there are far better practices in Europe than those described in this document. I am particularly concerned with the element of well-being at work. After all, legislation on health and safety at work is solid legislation. It is about vibrations, noise, and so on. Extensive research has been done in the Netherlands, for example, as to how well-being at work should be interpreted. This covers aspects that involve organisations, and aspects that can also have repercussions at a later date in the form of repetitive strain injury, stress or numerous other forms of non-well-being. A number of these elements have been mentioned in the Commission’s document in connection with investing in quality, but this aspect came to an abrupt end with the indicators that were developed afterwards by the Belgians. It is regrettable that this area is not further elaborated upon, as the proposals are actually a kind of odd collection of various points. The clinical pictures and problems concerning well-being have been known for a long time, and yet no date has yet been set for these proposals. So once again, I endorse Mr Hughes' description of the problems, and I also hope that he may have the moral fibre to withdraw his report if the Commission is not committed to solving the problems surrounding the reduction in staffing levels, the balance between legislative and non-legislative measures – which, in my view, is still wanting – and, above all, the lack of an action plan with a timeframe to back it up.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank my colleague Mrs Peijs for her very hard work in trying to reach suitable compromises on such a controversial and difficult report. Despite that, unfortunately, our view has not changed. The report was billed as proposals and an action programme for transport until 2010, but I believe strongly that it contains little more than ill-researched, half-baked ideas. It should not surprise anyone that the majority of the ideas proposed could not be considered seriously, as the original Commission proposal was so backward-looking. Not only is the paper almost totally focused on rail to the detriment of all other modes of transport, but it completely fails to alleviate the precarious situation in which the aviation industry has unfortunately found itself, particularly since 11 September. Yet again, the age-old favourite of kerosene tax has popped up, another way of sneaking it in through the back door. Competition also appears to have fallen by the wayside in this proposal. Either it was ignored deliberately or it was simply forgotten in the excitement of the rail enthusiasts in the Commission. The consumer has a right to choose his method of transport, so perhaps improving all modes, rather than just concentrating on rail, would have allowed the transport industry to compete fairly. Obviously, some of the most contentious issues in this paper concern the aspect of subsidiarity. It is clear that a European Road Safety Agency would be a total waste of taxpayers' money and another pointless layer of bureaucracy. In addition, we also oppose the introduction of a European Transport Fund, as this reeks of vested interest. One other point on taxation and infrastructure charging will be covered by my colleague Mr Bradbourn. If I may finally say, this proposal was a complete waste of an opportunity by the Commission to come up with far-reaching, innovative ideas which many of us may have been able to support. In a nutshell, it is a retrograde, ill-thought-out proposal, which we shall be voting against.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, one of the interesting things in the discussion on Guantanamo Bay concerns language, not least the new definitions of war that we begin to hear, which have no legal basis in any international jurisdiction. Mention has already been made of the UK releases today, and of course I welcome that development, but I am also interested in who is defending the interests of the remaining detainees, whose governments may not have a special relationship with the United States. I welcome this report because I think it is very important to keep the whole issue within the international arena. As others have said, we have seen a deliberately created legal limbo here, which has provided a green light for other regimes to act in similar ways now, not least China, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and other well-known democracies, with their policy of internment of so-called fundamentalists. We have seen the United Kingdom derogate from Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in order to legitimise the internment in Belmarsh of UK residents. It is important to respect the rule of international humanitarian law, even when it is inconvenient for governments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I support the extension of the Lamfalussy procedure in principle and I hope the interinstitutional difficulties can be resolved as soon as possible, so we can move forward and modernise decision-making structures in relation to banking, insurance and financial conglomerates. All the institutions need to work together to make this possible and I hope in particular that the Council will be able to make a declaration signalling its willingness to review Article 202 in 2004. We welcome significant parts of the van den Burg report: its focus on improved enforcement, its call for supervisors to be given some discretion and to be allowed to exercise judgement rather than inflexibly and unthinkingly enforcing rules and ticking boxes. We also support the call for a regulatory cost-impact assessment by the Commission and by Parliament for its amendments. We agree that there is a need for more cooperation between national supervisors and enhanced links and dialogue with the US. On the issue of a single pan-European supervisor, we have some divergence of views within our group. We are united in our view that it would be wrong to set up a pan-European supervisor now or in the medium term. Some of us in the British Conservatives would rule it out in principle, others within the Group would like to keep the option open as a very long-term possibility. I oppose a pan-European supervisor because it would have too much power. The concentration of power in, for example, the UK's Financial Services Authority, is very daunting in itself. A European equivalent would be a bureaucratic behemoth, unable to keep up with the dynamism and innovation of financial markets. A pan-European regulator would not have the expertise to deal with transactions and markets as diverse as, for example, the London derivatives market and the many thousands of small German savings and public banks. An effective regulator must be close to and must understand the markets it regulates. A single enforcer for financial services in the EU would have an impossible job, given the divergence of rules and legal systems across the EU. Financial regulators play a key role in prosecution and criminal justice, and these are matters which should remain within the remit of the Member States. There is so much other work to be done to create a single market in financial services and to really deliver those benefits that the Commission report talked about only a few days ago. EU decision-makers should accept that a centralised solution is not always the best solution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the conciliation meeting between the Council and Parliament most of the time was spent discussing the use of a flexible instrument. The Commission would have promised 197 million euros for the reconversion of the Spanish and Portuguese fisheries fleets, which is a lot of money. In the same connection, the Nordic countries are demanding 50 million euros to resolve problems on their eastern borders. It was decided to finance these new needs with a flexible instrument under section 2, but over a period of two years. This new interpretation of the use of a flexible instrument shows that if there is the political will to finance something, the rules can definitely be bent. The EU does not have a money shortage. That is evident from the financial statements for 2000. Furthermore, there will be a surplus of billions for this current year. There is 40 billion in outstanding commitments – the so-called ‘RAL’s – in the accounts, and it is to be supposed that most of it will never be spent. The Commission has saved money but it is questionable as to whether it has made any political decisions regarding savings. As there are such huge budget surpluses, the Commission has not implemented those budget decisions Parliament has made. To be perfectly frank, the Commission high-handedly invalidated the decisions of Parliament. If the next EU year is evaluated from the point of view of the budget we might say that things are on an even keel, no rises and no falls. There are no special areas of focus, only running costs are funded from the budget. When the Council lacks the ambition to tackle the problem of unemployment, it also shows in the Commission’s draft budget; for that reason, our group takes a critical view of it. Just a small detail, the Council has not wanted to end the transport of live animals over excessive distances. The ill-treatment of transported animals continues, and the Council of Agricultural Ministers is to blame.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, President-in-Office, I would first like to sincerely thank the rapporteur, Joseph Daul. Like many of the previous speakers, I fundamentally welcome the fact that the European agricultural model is to be extended to a multifunctional agricultural sector in the enlarged European Union. This requires qualified external protection, and within the EU we still need markets to be regulated. However, although I fundamentally view the Franco-German unity that has emerged in the run-up to enlargement as a good thing, it does raise some issues for me. Although taxpayers and farmers already know how much money is to be spent up to 2013, they do not know on what. Germany's position as a net contributor will worsen simply because Germany's Federal Chancellor has locked us into the agreed financial framework for the agricultural policy from 2006 to 2013, with 25 countries. As we have heard again and again, and as the Commissioner has also told us, the reduction in compensation payments needed after 2006 will mean that less money will go to the agricultural sector than does now, and that applies particularly to Germany. I simply want to make that criticism clear. Incidentally, our Chancellor is not renowned for being the German farmers' friend! The Commissioner for agriculture has put the net contribution to be made by the EU's farmers to financing enlargement at EUR 500 million in 2013. This amounts to the difference between the additional costs resulting from direct payments for the new Member States and the increase in agricultural expenditure approved by the EU Summit. This Commission calculation indicates to me that Europe's farmers will have to pay the lion's share of the burden of enlargement. The Commissioner for agriculture has repeatedly presented it as something positive that the Brussels Summit did not cap resources for rural development – that is to say, for the second pillar – but he can also tell us ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur warmly for the work he has done. In the Green Paper, the Commission mentions what is usually understood by social responsibility. This term is used to indicate that companies consider social issues and the environment of their own free will in the context of their company activities and in their relations with other parties. The Commission is right to point out that by assuming their social responsibility, companies do more than is legally required of them. This is exactly what has led to the biggest differences of opinion in this House. Listening to the rapporteur, one could be forgiven for thinking that the whole world can be changed not only by means of social responsibility, but especially with legislation based on this principle. Everything changes for the better, including child labour. I am surprised that volcanic eruptions have not been abolished. This is, of course, far beyond the reach of this instrument. Social responsibility is what it is about. Legislation is only secondary; this only needs adjusting in certain cases when social responsibility causes problems. A great deal can be achieved with social responsibility, but if, on the other hand, you immediately resort to legislation, you end up on the wrong path. This is like going to the football World Cup in Korea and saying that you want to watch hockey. Legislation in itself is not bad, and this is not what the is saying, but it does not belong in this report; it belongs in other reports. By using this term, you cannot suddenly introduce a whole raft of legislation. This must be done at the right time and in the right place. In my opinion, the Commission has borne this difference in mind at all times. Furthermore, I also think that it would not work, for if people think that by being socially responsible they are tied to legislation, this will not work as an incentive. For all these reasons, pragmatic and principled, the report that is now before us, including our amendments, is the right one. Indeed, it is based on free will, and this is what we need to base ourselves on. We can then reach agreement with everyone involved and achieve all these fine goals.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, it is very important that the European Parliament continues to support Alexander Nikitin, who is accused of endangering state security in Russia. This has been a tradition for us; we have supported him in his trial and followed it on a regular basis, and it has come to our attention that now would be just the right time to adopt a position, as the action will be continuing very soon.

Political group: Verts-ALE
The level of ongoing unemployment in continental Europe is far too high. It is a direct reflection of entrenched labour market rigidities plus the administrative burdens on business of high costs and excessive regulation. Continual industrial restructuring is vital for a healthy economy, for the replacement of yesterday's unwanted jobs with the fresh jobs needed for the future. More regulation is the problem, not the solution. Because of our desire to see more jobs not less, UK Conservatives have voted against this resolution.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would like to point out that in the provisional Minutes for yesterday which have been distributed, it is recorded that I voted in favour of the final Resolution of the Napolitano report. This is a mistake. The final version should reflect the fact that I abstained on that report.

Political group: Verts-ALE
This report should be seen in the context of ‘gradually developing a genuinely integrated system of external border control management’, as proposed, in fact, in the draft ‘European Constitution’. Whilst containing some contradictions, as a result of its supranational perspective – the report endorses the Commission’s role in this agency – at the same time, it rightly states that monitoring national borders should remain a sovereign Member State responsibility. One of the report’s more positive aspects is to criticise the idea of giving this agency the task of expelling immigrants. What is being proposed is basically to create an agency that will have responsibilities to date held by the Member States, which will prop up what is known as ‘Fortress Europe’ and which will assist in stamping out immigration and in expelling immigrants. I accept that there must be cooperation between national bodies, in order to combat networks that exploit immigrants and traffic in human beings and to combat organised crime and money-laundering. Mechanisms for this purpose already exist, however, and so there is no need to create new instruments that remove tasks which fall strictly within the competence of the national authorities and which are sovereign Member State responsibilities. The crux of the issue is not, therefore, to create new agencies but to change current policies. Hence our vote against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I should like to make it clear that the Bureau asked the Committee on Budgets to take a certain action, which Mrs Gill, as Budget rapporteur, could have done. She declined to do so. The Bureau requested that Members who were over 60 when they retired, had served at least two terms in the European Parliament and were prepared to pay – on the same basis as all the staff – one third of the costs of the scheme, would – as is the case for every member of staff of this institution – be admitted to a sickness scheme if they did not have adequate national insurance. The Bureau, which was unanimous in its view, put forward a very humane request. I do not think that Mrs Gill, as budget rapporteur, reacted in a friendly, humane or reasonable way to that request. A study will now be produced, and I hope that when it is finished the Budgets Committee, which spends millions of pounds on very dubious projects ... (Protests) ... will realise that it also owes a duty to senior and often ill Members of this House who have given a lot of service, and that those Members are prepared to pay to be in an insurance scheme which is more than any of us, as present Members, are prepared to do. I hope that this matter will be looked at again by the Budgets Committee but I restate that all Mrs Gill had to do was take the recommendation of the Bureau – not of this Quaestor – and place it before this House for a vote. If she thinks the Budgets Committee is superior to the House I suggest she go back to constitutional school. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE
As chairman of the Committee on Budgets, I am duty bound to vote for the amendments from the committee. In the committee I voted against those amendments which jeopardised the UK abatement. Had I been voting as a Labour backbencher in the plenary I would have voted in a similar way as I did in committee. It is my responsibility as chairman to uphold the position of the committee and therefore I voted for the Haug report. - Averoff report (A5-0055/1999)

Political group: PSE
Mrs Van Lancker’s report contains much that we in the Group of the European People’s Party think is good and important. However, the EU does not have, and nor should it have, competence in this area. We have therefore chosen to support the amendments whereby text is deleted on the grounds that issues such as abortion and sex education do not fall within the competence of the EU. We also voted in favour of Amendment No 7 which clearly explains our position. In the final vote, we voted against the report in its entirety.

Political group: PPE-DE