GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
The British Labour Members have voted in favour of the Sylla report, which serves a valuable purpose. All Member States must be strong and confident enough to accept criticism. This does not automatically mean that every criticism should be accepted as valid. We reject the rapporteur's assertion that the detention powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 are being used improperly. Where we are dealing with potential threats to national security exceptional measures are sometimes necessary. Tough safeguards ensure that these detention powers are not abused. The decision to detain individuals is made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. Only 15 Foreign Nationals have so far been detained under this Act. Detainees are free to leave the UK at any time to return to their country of origin, and have a right of appeal against the decision. The UK Government agrees that the detention of the children of asylum seekers should be avoided and is seeking workable solutions to prevent this situation. As regards the right to a fair trial, the vast majority of decided ECHR cases concern events occurring prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Individuals are now able to enforce their ECHR rights directly in UK courts. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I shall confine myself to some essential aspects, since the motion for a resolution that we are considering and that we supported is sufficiently exhaustive and also because we will yet have the opportunity to debate a report on our recent mission to Angola in the Committee on Development and Cooperation. I shall therefore refer firstly to the new and auspicious political situation we are seeing in Angola, where finally, following decades of war, peace seems at last to be irreversible. We can only welcome this extremely positive fact for the expectations it creates for stability, governance and improvements to the living conditions of the Angolan people, for the doors that it is opening to consolidation, improvement and democratic life and for the positive effects that it could bring to the entire region. Difficulties nevertheless remain and these could affect the course of the peace process itself. The expectations created by the signing of the memorandum of understanding are enormous and they must not be allowed to come to nothing. In addition to the inevitable trauma, the most pressing problems are to be seen at the humanitarian level, but also concern the much-needed reconstruction of the country, whose economy and infrastructures have been destroyed by the war. All the figures are worrying and prove the impossibility of Angola alone providing an appropriate and timely response. This is why I shall focus on some guidelines which I believe are crucial at this time: the need for the international community and, therefore, the European Union, to consider humanitarian aid to Angola as a priority, especially consignments of food, clothing and medicines, as well as the urgent need to supply such aid more rapidly and effectively; the urgent need to supply tools and seeds to enable people to grow crops and to reduce, in a short space of time, the current total dependence on food aid; specific support for the resettlement of displaced populations, specifically with aid for the rebuilding of basic infra-structures; and, as a corollary, clear and committed adherence to the two Conference of Donors phases recommended by the Angolan authorities. Angola expects a great deal from as and we must really not fail these expectations.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner Schreyer, you said that the medium-term financial plans also determined our policies for the next few years, and indeed they do. In the realm of agriculture, unless the worst comes to the worst, we shall obtain codecision, and our system of financial planning has a substantial agricultural component. We in the European Parliament want to be involved; we have no wish to accept the implication in the draft constitution that all power over money matters tends to rest with the Council, and we shall play our active role here. You also said that expenditure on agriculture would fall, while expenditure on sustainable business activity would rise. That is all very well, but if you consider the second pillar, to which rural development belongs, there is no real increase once you take account of the fact that there will soon be 25 and then 27 Member States. This needs to be rectified, particularly since the proposals formulated in the agricultural domain did not provide for capping. The third point is that we want to be more heavily involved in research. In the framework programme for research and development, only five of the individual programmes relate to agriculture. There is therefore a need to focus more sharply on the economic development of agriculture in rural areas. Allow me to conclude by returning to the discussion that took place on gross national income and to the contributions on that issue. I see little sense in the letter proposing a limit of one per cent. The proposal that the Commission has now made is an offer – let me just call it that, although I would personally have preferred a rather more sharply defined line to follow. We must, of course, succeed in narrowing the wide gulf between authorisations and disbursements by means of better policy – and this is naturally a matter for Parliament too. One final thought: you have formed a reserve for a Growth Adjustment Fund, but there is no provision for a specific reserve to deal with crises in areas such as foreign policy or the environment. This, I believe, is something that ought to be rectified.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Belgian Presidency has without doubt gone to a great deal of effort, yet the lack of a European Community spirit on the part of the fifteen governments in the European Union when it comes to important and urgent decisions is something that cannot be overcome by just one Presidency. The brilliant analysis of the situation and the many questions listed could have come from Parliament's reports on Nice, its aftermath, or Laeken, and they give the impression of having been written down on the spot. These are questions to which Parliament has for years now been demanding answers for the sake of the future of the European Union. Is everything now again being jeopardised by so much questioning? Let us take, for example, common suffrage. The Council has, since July 1998, been examining a European draft electoral law on elections to the European Parliament and has still not come to any conclusion by the end of 2001 – all of two and a half years later. It is raising the question of whether we want European suffrage. Looked at as a whole, there is no doubt that the Convention represents an opportunity, yet Parliament contradicts Laeken by demanding that we should negotiate and reach a decision on the basis of one unitary, coherent proposal. It is equally regrettable that the Heads of State and of Government have again put off until Barcelona and Seville resolutions on the adaptation of the Council's structures and work practices. Reading the Laeken resolutions reminded me of a saying coined by one of our poets, Hans Magnus Enzensberger: ‘He, seated in a common place, / thought up another commonplace.’

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, in response to what Mr Poettering has said, I would just like to underline that I did not raise any question relating to your past actions. I simply asked for a deadline to be set for the mission which our Parliament has agreed to send to the Spanish authorities. Nor did I cast any aspersions about why Mrs Garaud has not been able to go up to now. On the contrary, I said we fully understood those reasons, and that she has our every sympathy. I urge Mr Poettering in future to listen to what other Members say before he decides to attack them and to distinguish between a genuine concern for Parliament's reputation and procedures, and party political points. I was not making a party political point. I was making a point on behalf of this Parliament.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, members of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I can only applaud the Council’s presence in this debate. I echo without hesitation the encouraging words which the President-in-Office has just spoken. However, I need to get something off my chest. Maybe the President-in-Office of the Council is not aware that this is not the first time we have debated humanitarian law in this Parliament. We actually hold a topical debate every Thursday afternoon, which, unfortunately, is poorly attended by the Council. This, I deeply regret. However, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to use this opportunity to bring to your attention once more the fate of the Kosovar prisoners in Serbian prisons. Parliament has brought the fate of these prisoners to the public’s attention three times since our appointment in July and has also asked the Council to act in this matter. The situation in Kosovo has got considerably worse, not least because the Albanians are concerned about the fate of their fellow countrymen in Serbian prisons. The situation in Serbia is becoming more and more absurd. Last Monday, the Albanian student leader, Albin Kurti, was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, simply because he had organised first-aid courses after the bombardments. This was considered helping the UCK! Surely this is too absurd for words! Meanwhile, the population remains very concerned about the fate of those in prison. There are reports of torture. The Milosevic regime is also stepping up the repression of Serbia’s own opposition. Mr President-in-Office, could I ask you once more to act upon the resolutions which this Parliament has adopted three times and may I ask you what you intend to do?

Political group: Verts-ALE
I cannot vote in favour of the Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen report for reasons which include the following. The report has a clear supranational character. I support cooperation between States, but not the supranational dimension which the rapporteurs advocate and which was clearly rejected in the latest EU election. I also oppose the demands for common military defence, especially in sections 26 and 27 which require a “binding timetable” for a common defence and security policy which is to guarantee the EU’s external borders. Nor can I accept that the WEU should be integrated in such a way that the EU might in the future take measures with the help of credible military resources. No exception is to be made for Article 5 which prescribes a mutual responsibility for intervening militarily if another Member State is attacked. Sweden is militarily non-aligned, aiming at neutrality in times of war, and may in no circumstances take part in common military defence. I consider that it should only be possible to revise the EU’s statute through a unanimous decision in the Council of Ministers. Finally, I consider that Parliament ought to concentrate on the changes which must take place if we are to cope with decision making in an enlarged EU. - Report: Pirker (A5-0059/1999)

Political group: PSE
The issue that we are dealing with during this constitutive session is an extremely serious one: that of the dioxin crisis. I am pleased that it features on our agenda and that representatives of the European Commission and the Council spoke on this matter this morning at the request of our Assembly. The scandal of chickens and other animals being contaminated by dioxin, this carcinogenic substance, brought back very bad memories for all consumers. This is the unpleasant impression for many of us, of having been through this scenario before – a scenario in which consumers are the last to find out what they are eating, and yet whose health is at serious risk. The vote for this resolution is a genuine sign of the will of the European Parliament to get to the very bottom of this business and to answer consumers' legitimate concerns. At the time of the mad cow crisis, the European Parliament did not spare any effort to have measures adopted for the protection of consumers. Through its Temporary Committees of Enquiry, it followed with great vigilance the way the European Commission and the Member States managed the crisis. Its efficiency has been unanimously recognised by all European institutions. This is why I, like many of my colleagues, feel that we must set up a Temporary Committee of Enquiry on the dioxin crisis. Short-term solutions must be found in order to resolve problems caused by the contamination of foodstuffs in Belgium, and in the longer term, debate must be started on the many questions first thrown up by the mad cow crisis and which are again coming to the fore because of this new food crisis. I am thinking, for example of the Belgian government's lack of transparency in alerting the European Commission so late, and of the lack of information which was given to consumers. On a more global scale, the question being asked is ‘what kind of food policy do we want within the European Union?’. The European Parliament, as well as numerous consumer associations, has been able to give answers which are also ways forward for thinking about a new definition of the European Union's approach to food. This must uphold the interests of consumers, it must ensure that the precautionary principle prevails over all other principles, and it must set up an integrated inspection of the food chain in its entirety, from producer to consumer. This traceability is essential for food safety. This is, therefore, a global debate which we Members of the European Parliament must sustain throughout the next legislature. It must cover dioxin, hormones and GMOs which are all very controversial issues.

Political group: PSE
After the major fireworks disaster which destroyed an entire district in the Dutch town of Enschede on 13 May 2000, it transpired that safety existed only on paper. The company had applied for, and obtained, all the necessary licences, so nothing could go wrong. People living in the vicinity were not informed about the current use of the storage space, so nobody could become worried or ask for safety measures to be stepped up. Two days later, I asked the European Commission for maximum openness and the application of the Seveso II Directive. A few weeks later, along with three other Dutch MEPs, I had an interview with Commissioner Wallström, during which she committed herself to the proposal to step up the Seveso Directive, on which we are voting today. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was right to further tighten these proposals on the closing down of dangerous companies, training of personnel, provision of information to the public and the active bringing of safety reports and contingency plans into the public domain. Unfortunately, we have now also observed that an opposing movement is at play. The Rotterdam municipality is complaining that its position as the world’s largest port is at risk because much shipped freight comprises a number of containers with Chinese fireworks which, further to new safety requirements, are no longer admitted. Antwerp is said to allow such ships to enter its port, upon which the fireworks are transported by lorry to Rotterdam, a process which is even more dangerous. This problem too still needs solving.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I would like firstly to congratulate the Commissioner. I believe that this is a great achievement. As he has said, this is probably the most ambitious internal market project we are currently dealing with and I am happy to say this on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and as rapporteur on this issue. It is ambitious, Commissioner, because, in addition to what you have said, there is a fundamental reason, based on the principles of the internal market, for having a Community patent. If we want our internal market really to be a domestic market for companies and consumers, the current fragmentation suffered by patents, resulting from national borders, makes no sense. Having said this, it is an ambitious and difficult project, because, as you have mentioned, it requires a change to the Treaty and to the constitutions of at least four or six Member States. Therefore, Commissioner, I pray that there will be excellent cooperation between us, which we are going to need, and the capacity for negotiation so that this project can be taken to its conclusion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, the report before the House makes perfect sense if you believe that this Parliament ought to be the legislature of a European Polity. After all, every other state has a national assembly elected by a uniform method. But I hope Members will acknowledge that this is not the only legitimate view of the European Union. Some of us see this Parliament not as a federal assembly, but as a forum wherein the representatives of the peoples of Europe may hold the EU bureaucracy to account. The role of a Member of the European Parliament is not to be an agent for the European project; it is to represent the interests of his constituents. I was elected to speak for south east England in Brussels, not to speak for Brussels in south east England. That is why I believe that it should be up to each Member State to decide how and when to select its MEPs. I personally favour a majoritarian first-past-the-post voting system. But even if I did not, I would still object to any method being imposed by the EU. Nor is it the business of this House to dictate the gender composition of electoral lists. It is surely up to each party to decide how many men and women it wants to offer as candidates and up to voters to pass judgment on them. Above all, I object to the reiteration of this Parliament's demand for a pan-European top-up list. This, it seems to me, elevates the dogma of European integration above any practical considerations of accountability or responsiveness. There can be no European democracy as long as there is no European demos. We delude ourselves if we believe that this House commands anything like the affinity and identity which national parliaments have built up over the centuries. This Parliament could perform a useful role scrutinising the budget and holding the Commission to account. I only wish that the House were more interested in carrying out the functions which it already has, rather than constantly demanding new powers.

Political group: PPE-DE
It is true, Mr President, that involving the national parliaments in the European structure does not imply new institutions, it implies increasing their powers of control and information vis-à-vis their own people. As you know, honourable members, there is to be a Convention, the involvement of the national parliaments in which is of historic importance. But that is not enough. They need clear guidelines on the issues which the Convention will address and which are tantamount to drafting a European constitution. In-depth debates are needed, either in plenary or in special parliamentary committees, so that delegates come here to state not just their own personal opinions but the more general line of thinking of their parliaments. This is something I have yet to see in the parliaments of the Member States of the European Union, in Greece at least. If those responsible for national parliamentary work are not interested in organising this sort of debate, I fear that our debate here will be of limited interest.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the death penalty is unethical because it is wrong to take someone else’s life. Too often, innocent people are given the death penalty. The penalty is irrevocable, and a subsequent appeal, even if fresh evidence is submitted, is no longer possible. The death penalty is downgrading and is in contravention of the universal principle of justice. Joaquín José Martínez was recently acquitted in the United States. He came to visit us here in Parliament after he had been in prison for quite a few years. It became apparent that in his case, everything that could have gone wrong, did go wrong. According to Amnesty International, at least 1 475 prisoners were executed and more than 3 000 death penalties given in 2000. China, Iran, Saudi-Arabia and the United States account for approximately 88% of those. The first world congress against the death penalty took place here in Strasbourg between 21 and 23 June: 87 countries in the world uphold the death penalty, to which the under-aged and also mentally handicapped people often fall victim. We very much regret the fact that countries which often boast a very high standard in terms of human rights still elect to use this penalty, and execute – what often later appears – innocent people, while it is often clear from statistics – this is especially pronounced in the US – that social and racial aspects play a major role. We are also extremely concerned about the fact that the organs of those involved are subsequently offered for sale. I agree with Mr Méndez de Vigo that a European day against the death penalty would be extremely useful. Allow me to draw your attention to point 4 of the resolution which states that we urge the Belgian Presidency now to try to organise another vote in the sitting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in September on a resolution to abolish the death penalty. We hope that the Presidency, on behalf of all EU countries, will be able to count on sufficient support so that this time the resolution can be adopted.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am very disappointed at the delay, though I am delighted now that we are going to have clear compulsory labelling. I hope this will restore consumer confidence in beef, especially after the BSE crisis. I would like to see not only the country but also the region of origin on the label. I represent the West Midlands which has some of the best beef in the world – Herefordshire beef and Shropshire beef. I should like to see that go on the label. I would oppose very strongly the idea that 'EU' should be on the label and not the country and region of origin. I am also concerned about some of the words that might go on the label. One of those words is 'slaughtered'. That will not help with consumer confidence and might put some of the consumers off if they actually see where the animal was 'slaughtered'. I wish we could find a new word for it. Generally speaking, I am delighted that at last we are going to have clear labelling and, as I said, I want it to be the country and region of origin.

Political group: ELDR
Madam President, I am delighted at the victory of Parliament at the Court of First Instance. It confirms that we were right in the decision that we took. Mr Dell'Alba, though, is also right to draw attention to the fact that we must ensure that there are no disparities or discriminations in our Rules. That was the objective of the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs which we held in abeyance pending the judgment of the Court. Perhaps now is the time for this report to come before the full House, but if there is to be an appeal and if – although I would personally doubt this – the full Court of Justice were to suspend the effects of the decision of the Court of First Instance until they themselves rule, that would put us in a difficult position with the report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Personally I doubt that the full Court of Justice would give such an ordinance giving a suspensive effect, in which case we can proceed immediately to look at the disparity that some people may feel exists in our Rules. My report would, I am sure, go some way to reassuring people.

Political group: PSE