GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, however much I respect the opinion of the Members who have just spoken, I find it harsh and unjust to regard our report as inadmissible because of paragraph 15. Other colleagues have tabled amendments with a view to voting against that paragraph, and Members may agree with those amendments. To agree or not agree with a paragraph in a report is justified and democratic, and that is what we are here for. But I do not think it is right to move that a report is inadmissible because of one paragraph. I call on Members to vote against this motion. We must examine and vote on the report during this part-session, because it is not a matter of voting for the two rapporteurs but of voting for the European Parliament’s opinion.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the President-in-Office on getting through so many answers in this Question Time. You may have beaten the record. I do not know what the record is, but you have been very good. Secondly, I note your statement that this procedure will start on time on 3 December. Everyone in Parliament and the public is delighted to hear that and thank you for your very full reply. Can I just ask: is the next step to open up Council meetings to the public when you are legislating so we can see what you are doing? Then we would have real democracy in the Council. Will you do that next?

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, justice must be done, but more importantly justice must be seen to be done: the WTO is a very powerful international organisation, dealing with rules and law, and it must be seen to act justly. Accountability and transparency are therefore exceptionally important. Global trade requires global rules and development requires understanding of some of the problems of the developing countries. If we are discussing transparency and accountability within the WTO process, transparency for its own sake and accountability for its own sake are just not enough. The fundamental purpose of both is to create integrity in the system so that those who have promised to do things, and here I mean the developed countries, are forced to do them because of international public opinion. There are many things that the developed countries promised in the Uruguay round which have not been delivered. Conversely, those in the developing world who now have systems of corruption and bad practice will also be brought to book through the process of accountability and transparency. In this regard, I would like to support Mr Désir in saying that he has produced an excellent report which I want to support. It is vital to understand the permanent position of the rule of law. Equality before the law and confidence in it is an absolute necessity for developing countries. Without it all the well-meaning words and the great aid-giving we indulge in will come to nothing. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, the United States, we recall, is the country of the world which has had, for the longest time, an entrenched and justiciable bill of rights. It is therefore a horrible irony that the United States is one of the few countries in the developed world which still retains and practises the use of the death penalty. We face today a particular case, that of Derek Rockwell Barnabei: each human being is an individual in her or his own right and must be stood up for as such. We appeal for his life today, but he is also a symbol of a practice which we find appalling and which we know to be going on in many parts of the United States. I am myself a great lover of the United States and many aspects of its way of life. I have been a frequent visitor to the law school of the University of Texas and to other law schools in the United States. I admire them very much, but I am really sad to see that state and its governor practising this so frequently and boasting of it in presidential campaigns.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I heard your ruling, but Annex II to the Rules of Procedure says that each Member may put a supplementary to any question. We have been economical. We get one answer, but we should each get a supplementary.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, even to a slightly unprejudiced eye, there is clearly no trace of racism down the broad middle of this House. Even if we disagree on a report on racism, the reasons lie not in racism in Parliament but in the report itself. For example, the report not only contains laudable words on the fight against racism; it also deals with matters such as the voting rights of third country nationals in specific countries or the right to hold public office, which may be decided one way or the other, but which have nothing whatsoever to do with racism. And it is precisely on these points that this report is a dishonest and sorry effort and I make no bones about the fact. The fight against racism, to which we are all committed, is turned into small political currency and abused, which is why we are unable to vote for the report in its present form. I stand firmly against the way in which racism has been played down, as we have said, to make it a subject of political debate. That is our grave criticism of the approach taken in this report. We are all against racism and we all have a contribution to make. There should be a broad consensus on this in this House. But we cannot possibly allow this concept to be taken up by one side of the House and used to conduct a political fight; we must insist that matters of this sort are dealt with in a way which can meet with everyone’s approval, and that is not the case here.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the draft Convention approved by the Council, there are also regulations on concealed listening devices and co-operation among authorities connected with it. Many of the regulations on bugging, however, are drafted by the Enfopol working party, which is under the control of parliamentary or political forces, but is concerned exclusively with police co-operation. Nevertheless, this sort of bugging might be violating personal and national privacy, and may also be criminal. I would ask what the Council intends to do in order that these Enfopol regulations come within the scope of parliamentary and democratic control.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I welcome all the efforts, both public and those behind the scenes, that have been made, from the moment the first Portuguese citizen was kidnapped, particularly the efforts made by the Portuguese Government, with a view to ensuring the release of the hostages. I also wish to add my voice to the appeal made to the LFEC by all the Portuguese Members here in Strasbourg, for it immediately and unconditionally to release the eight Portuguese citizens that it is holding hostage, to respect human rights, to think of these people’s families, who are undergoing considerable anguish and worry, and to return the hostages to normal life so that they can move freely within the country in which they have decided to exercise their professions. I also wish to make it quite clear to the LFEC that there is no political cause, whether one agrees with it or not, that justifies using kidnapping as a form of defence. Situation in Kalimantan

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would simply like to point out a translation error in the French version. I have checked in the other versions. This leads me to say to my friends that we should vote for this amendment and, of course, correct the French version.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I would just like to come back to the remark made by the previous speaker, Mr Walter. He compares the EUR 32 million called for with a sum of money we once paid to Portugal and Spain and with which we now want to assist a few other states. That is not the case. This money is for the entire European Union. That can be checked in the Minutes and, at the Commission’s suggestion, it will be made available only if the Council is willing, because it has agreed to the fisheries policy reform. I just wanted to make that correction.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should like to advocate that we defer the decision concerning this proposal. Unlike the rapporteur, I do not think that this agreement should depend upon whether or not we ourselves stand to gain from such an agreement but upon whether human rights and democracy in Turkey will benefit from it. That must be the crucial point for us. Since we began to discuss these matters, the Turkish Parliament has confirmed its death sentence on Mr Öçalan. We oppose the death penalty on principle. We think that abolishing the death penalty is fundamental to safeguarding human rights. I would therefore recommend that we defer the discussion of this point until such time as the Turkish Parliament has shown that it is willing to respect basic human rights in Turkey.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, in his speech at the formal opening of the new legal year in Turkey on 6 September, the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Sami Selçuk, strongly denounced the country’s constitution. With the words, “Turkey is a country with a constitution but it is not a constitutional state,” he condemned the Turkish constitution. The constitution apparently protected the rights of the state at the expense of the freedom of the citizens. “We need more democracy and more citizens who are allowed freedom of thought without being restricted by the laws of the land,” said the judge. He spoke in favour of widespread democratic reform and also fundamental restructuring of the political system. He is right. His demands are identical to our expectations. I am even convinced that the majority in this House is also in favour of a democratic Turkey, in which human rights and minority rights are respected. It is my conviction, too, that we are bound to support democratic circles and their modest successes not just on moral grounds but also because a democratic Turkey, which can solve its own problems within Turkey, will be advantageous for the internal security of the European Union. By means of our policy we could make a contribution towards ensuring that the proponents of a European democracy in Turkey may be successful and that the hawks who are against Europe may be the losers. In other words, at the present time, we need a policy which assists Turkey whilst maintaining a critical attitude and a policy which induces it to settle obvious issues such as the Kurdish question, the Cyprus issue or the human rights problems speedily and humanely. This cannot be the policy of the exclusion or the isolation of Turkey! Therefore, whatever the timetable or the exact procedure, in Helsinki a sign must be given towards the people of Turkish and Kurdish origin and towards democracy in Turkey. I cannot as yet say anything for sure on behalf of my group on the integration of Turkey, because we are still having discussions, but for me personally, it means as Mr Verheugen has already said, that it has candidate status for accession to the European Union. Its integration is urgently necessary, not just for the democratisation of Turkey, but also for peace and stability in the Balkans and in South-Eastern Europe. The Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou yesterday said at the University of Istanbul, “We want Turkey in the European Union right now!” Nothing further need be said! I think he made it perfectly clear!

Political group: Verts-ALE
Once again, the European Parliament finds itself compelled to adopt a maximalist position on the institutions, a position bereft of any realism. As usual, it is going all out for an unfettered federalist approach. This is reflected in the proposal to almost totally eliminate the unanimity rule, to make the codecision process the norm, to institutionalise the European political parties, to create a European electoral club, to integrate the Western European Union, to strengthen Europol, and, to constitutionalise the Treaties in a far-reaching way. These are ideas from which we have always unequivocally distanced ourselves and will continue to do so. However, this report also proposes new and unacceptable ideas. On the pretext that it is necessary to adapt the institutions to the prospect of enlargement, it is now being suggested that there should be a disproportionate strengthening at various levels of the decision-making powers of the large countries and an intolerable reduction of the decision-making powers of the small- and medium-sized countries. All this suggests and implicitly encourages the creation of political inner cabinets, which are totally unacceptable, and which will make it easier to achieve ‘enhanced cooperation’. We are, of course, opposed to such ideas. At the same time, if the European Parliament approves a report like this, it will appear to be indifferent to situations which are obviously urgent, such as the need to overcome or at least mitigate serious democratic deficits; the need to modify the monetarist principles – in particular the Stability Pact – which are the root cause of today’s social scourges such as unemployment and unstable employment; to change the Statute of the European Central Bank so as to ensure greater transparency and appropriate controls and limits on its powers; and to make the existing principle of economic and social cohesion a reality, which is a vital step in creating a Europe of the future based on solidarity. The European Parliament could demonstrate its worth by adopting these policies. But if it opts for the proposals contained in the Dimitrakopoulos-Leinen report, this will suggest that it is becoming increasingly remote from the people it is supposed to represent. We will therefore be voting against the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
We have become aware since drafting this report that the last phrase in our paragraph 4 is contrary to the provisions that we cite in recital A, referring to Protocol 6 of the ECHR. Therefore, I would like to propose that we replace the last phrase of paragraph 4 with the phrase 'extradition cannot take place where the defendant could be sentenced to capital punishment'. If we use those words, we are in conformity with Protocol 6 which we cite at the beginning. (Parliament agreed to take into consideration the oral amendment) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Motion for a joint resolution(2) on the WTO meeting in Qatar (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0764/2001), by Mr Lannoye and others, on behalf of the Group, on the WTO meeting in Qatar (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0771/2001) by Mr Nobilia, on behalf of the UEN Group, on the WTO meeting in Qatar (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0817/2001), by Mrs Figueiredo, on behalf of the Group, on the WTO meeting in Qatar (Parliament rejected the motion for a resolution) *** Motion for a resolution (B5-0819/2001) by Mrs Suominen and Mr Schwaiger, on behalf of the Group, Mr van den Berg, Mrs McNally and Mrs Mann, on behalf of the Group, Mr Clegg, Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel and Mr De Clercq, on behalf of the Group, on the WTO meeting in Qatar (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0394/2001) by Mr Lagendijk, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the Commission communication on Conflict Prevention (COM(2001)211 – C5-0458/2001 – 2001/2182(COS)) (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** Report (A5-0418/2001) by Mr Gahler, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on EU relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran (COM(2001) 71 – C5-0338/2001 – 2001/2138(COS)) – Before the vote on Paragraph 5

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, we could classify the speeches made in the course of this debate into two categories: firstly, those which view the problem from a European perspective and which propose actions to be implemented through European and Community policy and, secondly, those which, at this time of human tragedy, tragedy for a country, which is five months from an election, believe that this is an opportunity to gain electoral advantage without considering what the real consequences for these people are. There has been talk of a temporary committee of inquiry, in accordance with Rule 150 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which must be justified on the grounds of non-compliance with European legislation. What grounds have we heard here? To know what has happened; clearly we all want to know what has happened, but we are not going to achieve this through a parliamentary committee. We will be told this in the reports of the experts and that is why the Group’s proposal is that it should be the Commission that informs the Council and Parliament by means of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Assessing the damage; criticisms are being made, although the time limit for assessing damage ends on 23 January, but today, at the beginning of December, the Spanish State is being criticised for not having assessed the damage. Measures to be adopted; Spain has adopted measures. Coordinating 10 000 volunteers, coordinating the work of the institutions, coordinating international aid; what is coordinating all of this are the measures that have been adopted. Mobilise the European institutions; yesterday we had a meeting with Commissioner Barnier, during which he acknowledged the talks and contacts he had had with the Spanish Government. The fishermen are being paid, aid is arriving. Therefore, what are the justified grounds? They do not exist. Simply a will to criticise for political reasons in view of the elections, and this is neither the forum nor the place, and you will not find us participating. You will find us helping the Galicians, you will find us helping the Spanish and saving these coasts. That is what we are working on.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, my Committee has very carefully considered its amendments, and its vote to introduce them was unanimous. As already set out in the guidelines, we put the emphasis on such things as the management of borders, an area in which the ARGO programme is of fundamental importance, contributing as much to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice as it does to preparations for enlargement. Enlargement makes the topics of external border control, visas, asylum and immigration even more urgent. Efficient cooperation by the Member States and the candidate countries in these areas, and especially in combating illegal immigration, is indispensable, and requires that the necessary resources be made available for it. My Committee also supports efforts to integrate third-country nationals who are long-term residents here by establishing a pilot project. This would serve to transmit the values underpinning our coexistence in Europe. I am very glad that the Commission accepts this. Security, freedom and justice are not, of course, to be had for free, but my Committee's present proposals do not represent any increase in the financial framework over against last year's budget. What we are asking for is only 99.4% of last year's figures. This is something I particularly want to underline, as we have greater responsibilities towards the EU's citizens in view of 11 September. I would like to conclude by reminding you of the 21 September 2001 action plan to combat terrorism, which envisages joint action by all specialist units to prevent and combat terrorism, and requires that Europol and Eurojust be equipped for this purpose with special resources. It is with this in mind that I hope that my Committee will be backed up by Parliament's, the Commission's and the Council's own proposals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, you were very quick in drawing up the work plan. In accordance with Rule 110a of the Rules of Procedure, I should like a decision to be taken, without a debate, on the report on Austria’s initiative for drawing up a list of so-called safe countries that offer asylum. I have been the rapporteur for this report by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and the report was voted through by 27 votes in favour and two against. It would be unfortunate if a decision on this issue had to wait right until September. I should have liked to see a debate, but it would be good if we could take a decision on this issue in the course of this week. In accordance with Article 110a, I should like this report to be voted on this week.

Political group: ELDR
It is with the purpose of effectively muzzling the national parliaments, above all, that the European Commission, in its frenzy of regulation and liberalisation, has tabled a proposal for a directly binding regulation rather than a directive, which is to be whipped through Parliament and the Council of Ministers with all hands on deck so that it can enter into force as early as 31 December of this year. I have never seen such a show of strength. The urgency is all the more suspicious because the proposed unbundling of the local loop in the telephone network will lead to the impossible situation of the incumbent operators financing their own competitors, particularly in countries like Luxembourg, where the telephone line rental is kept low for social reasons. 480 francs per month do not cover the costs. It is to be assumed that the incumbent operators will have to let their competitors connect to the lines for even lower prices which do not cover the costs. In the short term they will probably tempt customers with free calls, which will of course lead to completely ruinous competition, which, at the end of the day, the small end-customers will have to pay for. What is being proposed here is the thorough dispossession of the former operator, which will lose a huge amount of money – around a billion francs in my small country – which of course will not be available to modernise the fixed network, quite apart from the fact that obviously no operator will be so stupid as to invest in the modernisation of a network with which it has to subsidise its competitors. And then there is the added problem of providing protection against tapping. If 20 or more competitors are allowed to hang around in the roughly 50 exchanges belonging to the former incumbent in my small country, then we can bid farewell to confidential telephone calls and security in these exchanges. I, too, am in favour of liberalisation in the interests of consumers. But if liberalisation permits excesses of the kind which I have just described – which ought in fact to be of interest to Mr Monti, the Competition Commissioner – then I will not go along with it any longer and that is why I voted against this report.

Political group: PPE-DE