GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent explanatory statement. It points out some of the serious flaws in this proposal. The lack of clarity of language is inevitably going to lead to legal uncertainty. Legal certainty is something that is essential in such crucial matters. Because of shoddy drafting the Convention can be interpreted very widely, and it ignores the strict conditions which interception is supposed to be subject to under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 18 allows interception in another Member State without its involvement. Not only should this be deleted, the whole interception title should be scrapped. An initiative of the FBI drew up the user requirements which form the basis of the current legislation. The Council proposal containing those requirements, ENFOPOL 98 was approved by this Parliament last May in the Schmid report. Now we are being asked to provide the legal base for such interception, and it is the combination of these two documents that should be looked at. The requirements propose to allow the authorities access to the facilities of all service providers, that is, telephones, mobile phones, Internet, etc.; and given the current extremely shoddy drafting, this is open to abuse. I would also like to ask: given that the user requirements specify that the police has access to all service providers without exception, does this include Parliament’s in-house service? Are we adopting rules that will allow the police access to our own systems on very, very shoddy grounds? Furthermore, in this proposal there is no threshold for serious offences. This leaves it wide open to abuse. Again as regards the reversal of the burden of proof, something which is recognised in international, fundamental law, the presumption of innocence is essential. That is not guaranteed. Neither the preamble nor the body of the text takes proper account of the rights of the defence, a basic principle of international fundamental rights. This issue is extremely serious. We are very concerned about the direction we are taking here without proper public debate within the national parliaments or elsewhere and without the involvement of civil liberties organisations throughout Europe which are extremely concerned about these developments.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I am speaking now because I believe that I can propose a solution that is quite correct. We are dealing with three terms: fair, free and socially-balanced. Both the words “fair” and “free” are as far as I can see desired by a large majority. The only disputed point is the term “socially-balanced”. That was also what Mrs Maes said first of all, so it would be easiest if we voted separately on each of these three words, then we shall have the majority opinion of the Parliament on each of the three words. The request itself is unclear.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to thank our rapporteur for this excellent report which, nonetheless, concludes that, as a Community, our accession to these two WIPO treaties must not boil down to a mere institutional development, however important that may be, i.e. the opportunity for the European Community and the WIPO Assembly to work together. This ratification is also necessary in the light of the enlargement of Europe. However, an objective is emerging behind this issue of Community accession, one I find as yet too theoretical but one that some Member States, nonetheless, find too offensive. This is the affirmation of a European cultural policy. In this connection, I expect our three institutions, Parliament, the Commission and the Council, to be in agreement. Cultural policy means, in particular, defending the role of the arts, recognising the role of authors and setting high cultural standards. In addition, at a time when Europe faces the task of defining a new policy on copyright and neighbouring rights, there is an urgent need – as has just been pointed out several times – to define and redefine what exactly an author is. Our definitions are still too vague and new technologies now make it essential for us to clarify them.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, the NPT is not only a non-proliferation treaty. It is also the only binding international agreement for nuclear disarmament. Non-nuclear powers undertake not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear powers promise to get rid of their existing ones. These commitments may be found in Article 6 of the Treaty, under which the parties undertake to conduct serious negotiations with a view to getting rid of all nuclear weapons. This undertaking has been signed by all the nuclear powers. At the previous quinquennial meeting, the nuclear states undertook totally to abolish their nuclear arsenals. Above all, a unanimous decision was taken concerning a 13-point action programme for implementing complete nuclear disarmament. What the EU must do at the forthcoming meeting is, of course, to demand that these commitments be met. Ireland has for a long time played an active role in the work for nuclear disarmament, for example in conjunction with my own country, Sweden. Will the Council demand, then, that these commitments be complied with? The nuclear powers have certainly reduced their strategic nuclear arsenals. The United States has instead developed what are termed mini nuclear weapons, intended to be used directly in war, together with nuclear weapons known as bunker buster weapons that penetrate thick rock. These developments undoubtedly breach Article 6 of the NPT Treaty. Moreover, the United States has revised its nuclear weapons policy so as to be able to use its nuclear weapons, and not only in war but also for so-called preventive purposes. This amounts to a serious breach of international law. To engage in war for preventive reasons is a breach of the UN Charter and a return to the law of the jungle, that is to say the right of the strong, applicable before the advent of the United Nations, to intervene for their own purposes. It is naturally important for the European Parliament to demand in its resolution that the parties that have signed the NPT should fulfil their commitments. They must embark upon serious nuclear disarmament and call a halt to any development of new nuclear weapons. In what way will the Commission and the Council give impetus to these demands at the next NPT meeting?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, as you can see, the question by my honourable friend, Mr Papayannakis, starts with a press release by Amnesty International. There is a legal problem with the detainees, but there is also a problem with their fundamental rights, their inability to communicate with their families, with drinking water, sanitation and so on. One of the occupying forces, the United Kingdom, is a Member State of the European Union. Would the Council be prepared to put Mr Papayannakis’s questions to the government of the United Kingdom so that it can give a reply? I think that the whole of Europe is open to criticism as the result of this situation.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Public utilities, such as postal services, public transport, the supply of energy and drinking water, have, for more than a century, been government monopolies for very good reasons. These are vital utilities, and competition would interfere with their being continuously available to all at an affordable price. One would expect that advocates of political and economic unification would strive towards the integration of public postal companies of all the Member States and towards single European stamps. Instead, the co-existence of different postal companies in the neo-liberal phase is being used to allow these companies to compete with each other and, in addition, to open the door to American or Australian companies, or to new companies which offer poorer services at lower prices under poorer working conditions. Twenty years from now, after take-overs and bankruptcies, there will be three global concerns in charge, and mandatory protection of staff, the environment and consumers will prove impossible. At first reading, the majority of the EP rejected a further weight decrease of postage under 150 grams for distribution in a competitive market, as well as more far-reaching forms of liberalisation in due course. At the risk of the European Commission applying other rules which offer yet less protection to a universal provision of services, after years of protest, the social democrats are now finally resigned to these unsatisfactory plans. In my opinion, this resignation is unnecessary and harmful, and I will vote for rejection.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We agree fully on the need to fight racism and xenophobia and welcome that the European Commission recognises the need to fight racism and xenophobia. We will, however, not support the Ceyhun report for several reasons. Firstly, the report leaves little if any attention to the political fight against racism and xenophobia, and focuses primarily on the judicial action to be taken. However, racism and xenophobic attacks and discriminations occur in the social and economic spheres and must be countered by measures to abolish such discriminations, which exist also in institutionalised forms. An approach strictly limited to criminal law cannot be considered sufficient in the fight against racism and xenophobia. Secondly, the focus of the report is on legal restrictions on racist and xenophobic beliefs and not on the actions motivated by racism and xenophobia. Criminalising what people think amounts to attempted censorship and diverts attention from violent criminal attacks on people of colour and foreigners. Instead of a 'mind-policing-approach' we would support a hate-crime-legislation approach that considers racist and xenophobic motives for a crime an aggravating circumstance and increases sanctions on these crimes. (Abbreviated in accordance with Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, I am sure all Members of the House are very happy to contribute to the Commissioner's aim of reducing the amount of legislation on the statute books, in this case by reducing some five or six directives to just one. Members of the House have been criticised by the European Environment Bureau for being less than ambitious – in particular for not insisting upon a phasing-out of phosphates across the European Union. We have, it is being said, sold out to the detergent manufacturers. Depending on the eye of the beholder a bath of hot water may be half-full or half-empty; I compare the changes proposed by the rapporteur, with cross-party support, as representing very much the half-full option. They represent a significant step forward, tightening up on requirements for the use of specialist detergents, improving on the proposals for labelling of potential allergens, ensuring that consideration is given to the development of non-animal tests and setting the basis for proposals to eliminate phosphates, taking full account of scientific evidence. These proposals are realistic and cautiously ambitious, they improve to my mind on the Commission's draft proposals. However, I am very conscious of the need to ensure that we secure cross-party support, if the powers of this House to improve environment legislation are to be brought to bear. We can sometimes make gestures at first reading, securing major amendments for radical reform, but they matter not at all if we cannot get agreement at second reading, if we cannot secure that qualified majority; and to make progress we need to take account both of our ambitions for the environment and of legitimate concerns for industry. On the day after we voted for the enlargement of the European Union, I am very conscious that this is going to be more difficult as time passes. We are at serious risk of having to move at the very slowest pace of the slowest Member, unless we can bring the House together at every opportunity. My biggest concern at the moment is that we have an increasing number of Member States who are simply failing to comply even with the legislation we already have on the statute books. In the United Kingdom there are currently nine environmental directives which should already have been transposed since the Commissioner came to office, not one of which has yet been put into practice. Ministers are going to the Council of Ministers, signing their names to documents agreed after co-decision and then simply not keeping their word. Playing the system, breaking the spirit of the rules. The problem therefore is not whether the bath of hot water is half-full or empty, but that too many Member States are not putting the plug into the bath in the first place. That should be the number-one concern, not only of the European Environment Bureau, but also of those who care in this House and in the Commission about ensuring that we move forward together to improve Europe's environment.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like, respectfully, to point out that, very often, when we rise and observe a minute’s silence, the people in the public gallery remain comfortably in their seats. Considering that those people are European citizens too, I feel that they should also rise and observe a minute’s silence with us.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the intention behind EMAS is an excellent one: encouraging companies to have more respect for the environment. Seven years after its creation, however, EMAS is a success only in some countries. There is still a long way to go, and today we need to identify the reason for this limited result. EMAS is complex, too complex. The regulation imposes heavy constraints on those companies which do agree, voluntarily, to participate. This complexity is such as to discourage SMEs, which, as we all know, are bending under the weight of bureaucracy. Yet they are the engine of Europe’s economy. We should be making them our number one priority, hence the importance of the incentives our rapporteur was just talking about. In the same spirit, I would also say that some amendments are in danger of erring through excess of ambition. I mean Amendments Nos 5, 10 and 17 on the best available technologies, the BATs. A requirement like that would mean sometimes insoluble problems for SMEs, which cannot always adapt to these BATs. In any case their very definition is already a problem for some economic sectors. So the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party will be voting against. On the other hand, in the spirit of compromise, we are ready to support Amendments Nos 43, 44 and 45, which link these best available technologies, from the environmental viewpoint, with conditions that are economically and technically viable for businesses. Finally, there is the question of workers’ participation, which we naturally value highly and which the common position entirely authorises. On the other hand, we reject Amendments Nos 41 and 50, because more restrictive measures here again threaten to discourage a large number of candidate firms. Finally, I will simply say that quantity must not drive out quality. The system is voluntary, so it must be attractive in order to survive. Otherwise EMAS will be no more than a litany of good intentions likely to be impracticable for businesses and therefore completely useless.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I am very happy to hear that, in order to fulfil commitments, more resources and personnel are required. As Parliament is aware of this, we will offer our full support. However, I would like to ask a question, since I have not had time to study the document at length. What will happen to humanitarian aid? We understand that the Union’s policy of humanitarian aid does not end with simply granting it, but it has to continue – we talk in this context of a ‘continuum’ – so that development policies can be carried out. Otherwise, we may see a repetition of what is happening in Mozambique at the moment: clearly, humanitarian aid was removed, ECHO disappeared, development policy is no longer being implemented and therefore, violence may erupt once again. Within this ‘continuum’ I would like to know whether, as has been the case until now, ECHO will be an office dependent on the Commission, but whose action will be based on development policies aimed at what we want to see, and that is the eradication of poverty. IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTAVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, pirate fleets – it is hard not to think of the Hollywood adventure films with piracy depicted as heroism and romance in equal measure or the exciting books one read as a child. However, there is nothing heroic or romantic about the background to my thoughts on piracy now, as I speak to you here, and there is quite definitely nothing to get excited about. On the contrary, all we have here is a destructive fisheries practice and flags of convenience. We should not see these modern pirates who sail the seven seas as tough old characters with wooden legs and eye patches; no, these pirates operate on powerful trawlers, often owned by nationals of Member States of the EU. So exactly what havoc do these ships and flags of convenience wreak? This House has always battled for sustainable fisheries and tried to ensure that working conditions meet minimum standards. The parlous state of fish stocks and the economic recession tell us that a great deal still needs to be done, and we are addressing these problems in our debate on the Green Paper. However, regulations and stock management measures have to be complied with and this compliance can only be achieved with controls which actually work and effective sanctions – including political sanctions. This is the huge attraction of flags of convenience to shipowners, because the countries which generously include them in their registers are not exactly known for their controls and sense of responsibility. The consequences are catastrophic, to both fish and man. Regional stock management measures are ignored, stocks which are already endangered are depleted without a second thought and conventions to protect employees are simply ignored. But there is no point in lamenting what is an obvious situation any further, so my proposal is that we should keep trying to influence flag-of-convenience states and remind them of their international obligations. Even in Europe we can and must act. The port state controls adopted in the Erika I package must also be applied to pirate activities, and we must close our markets to the catches landed by these fleets.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, this is a very important report because the European Community is discussing recovery plans for fish stocks for the first time. Since this is the first time, it is very important that we get it right. We must make sure that the actions we take will reverse the declines in several cod stocks and northern hake and allow them to recover. The Commission proposals were tough and will definitely have an impact upon the fishing communities involved, but they had to be tough because the state of the stocks is so poor. As the rapporteur has said, if we do not do something about fish stocks, there will be no fishing industry in the future as there will be no fish. ICES says that cod in the North Sea is at its lowest level since 1963. While hake may not yet be in such dire straits, it is still far below the level which is appropriate, and the warning bells have been ringing now for quite some time. The Commission, the Committee on Fisheries and the Council all claim to agree with the precautionary approach, which states that the absence of definite proof should not be used to refuse action to prevent a decline in fish stocks. In other words, as soon as there are reasonable grounds to believe that cod and hake stocks need a degree of protection, we should act. That is exactly what the Commission has done. However, what did the Committee on Fisheries do? It argued that there is no crisis involving hake and completely removed it from the proposal. We must vote against this amendment. I agree with the rapporteur on this point. It is completely unacceptable. This is not a precautionary approach to fisheries management. The committee is simply paying lip service to the idea and continuing with business as usual. We are not going to solve the problems if this is the way we go on. We cannot keep refusing to face up to reality. We must realise that these stocks are endangered and we must protect the fishing industry. It is doing the fishing industry no favours in the long term if this is the kind of simplistic, nationalistic short-term approach that has been taken. If the report goes through plenary as it is, the Group will have to vote against it.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, last week I saw on Danish television Parliament’s President in close communication with the member of his own party who is now the sitting President of the European Council, and I imagine, without being able to lip-read, that there were two related subjects that might have occupied these two colleagues. The first was Turkish accession to the EU, and the second was the issue of referendums. I shall not go into details regarding the first point but merely observe that the Turkish Government has now obtained a very effective lobbyist in the form of the United States of America’s bellicose President who gets on the ’phone to both parties. What, however, was the problem for the Prime Minister and what emerged at our group meeting in Copenhagen was the fact that people back home could confuse Turkey’s accession with the new treaty. Since, moreover, Parliament’s President is a type of specialist in referendums, my question is as follows: what, in actual fact, was talked about? What advice did Parliament’s President give the member of his own party in Denmark?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, last night, I dreamed about Mr Napolitano too. Mr Napolitano, who is the rapporteur of this document on the role of the regional authorities, was the President of the WUR – the World Union of Regions – in my dream. Already, since, in my dream, a single world government had been established made up of the regions, the individual States no longer existed and the regions had assumed such importance as to form, all together, a worldwide association, the WUR – the World Union of Regions – with Mr Napolitano as President. I know that this is only a dream and that the dream is unlikely to come true, but since these regions had ceased to fight with each other, as, I regret to say, some States still do now, it is my hope and desire that, step by step, as per the Napolitano report, we will genuinely achieve the WUR, the World Union of Regions. I therefore voted for the motion.

Political group: PPE-DE