GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Madam President, I notice that Mr Gorostiaga is no longer in his seat. Like those who share his creed, who murder and then flee, he spits out his poison on this House and then disappears like a coward. Mr Gorostiaga has reminded us that the Spanish democratic justice system has in recent days made a series of arrests. Those arrested have been people accused of very serious crimes, of collaborating with armed groups, of apologising for terrorism and of supporting organised crime. These people, who have been arrested on the orders of an independent and democratic judge, will have every judicial safeguard, they will be defended and heard, they will have a fair trial and, at all times, their dignity as people and citizens will be respected, which is not the case with the victims of Mr Gorostiaga’s friends, who are silenced by a bullet or a bomb, and who are, of course, unable to express themselves freely from the graveyards they are sent to by Mr Gorostiaga’s associates. Very soon the Basque Country will have the opportunity to speak freely through the ballot box and then Mr Gorostiaga will see the results of the horror he brings to this House. Madam President, just as Mr Gorostiaga’s speeches are a disgrace to this House, the abominations practised by his ETA friends and represented by him are a disgrace to humanity. (Applause) ***

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel, ladies and gentlemen, I am personally delighted to have this opportunity to express an opinion on the Commissioner’s communication and to be able to tell him that it is a document of extremely high quality which, as we have seen again this evening, has provided the basis for a relevant debate on revitalising research in Europe. We have effectively entered the knowledge society, which has led us to put research back at the heart of our society. In Europe, however, as many people have said, the position of research looks worrying if one looks at the figures. It is therefore necessary, as a matter of urgency, to adopt an overall strategy at European level in order to make up for lost time. It is not a matter of casting doubt on the efficiency of the DPs. Their results are plain to see. It must be noted, however, that new initiatives need to be adopted in order to decompartmentalise Member States’ national systems which today represent nothing more than a duplication of efforts. Among the many measures which must be implemented, this evening I shall mention, in particular, the training and the mobility of researchers, to go back to a previous debate which involved the Commissioner and researchers from my own region. I am speaking, therefore, to voice their concerns, for we are not training enough scientific researchers and even fewer European researchers. The training of researchers should therefore include a European dimension, which would offer them greater mobility. Schemes do exist, but, in the real world, before and during implementation, there are administrative obstacles to mobility, such as welfare cover, which discourage many researchers. I shall end by saying that we must also devote ourselves to informing the citizens, in whom scientific progress raises as much hope as concern. I therefore hope that, in June, our ministers will be able to approve the rapid establishment of a whole series of building sites in Europe, on the basis of the Commissioner’s proposals.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I was a little disappointed with the answer given by the President-in-Office to my colleague. It is very important, if we stress that Europe is to be a Europe of values, that we do not go down the road of saying that means justify ends. If civilian targets were targeted and destroyed, killing civilians is illegal by anyone's standards. It should not be defended even by those of us who deeply deplore the Milosevic regime. That, however, is not my question. My question is about political prisoners held in Serbia now. There are, I believe, around 5 000 Kosovar political prisoners held in Serbia at the moment. My question to the President-in-Office is twofold. Firstly, is the Council fully aware of and concerned about the fate of these prisoners? Secondly, what does it propose to do about them?

Political group: Verts-ALE
As you know, Commissioner, where there is undeclared work there are usually undeclared businesses. So I think we should be discussing not how many people have not been registered with social security agencies but how many businesses have not been registered at all, either with the Ministry of Trade or the police. Nowhere. There are sectors in Greece in which this is the rule rather than the exception. And their economic raison d'être is that no one knows about them. Of course, the Commission does not interfere in internal affairs in the Member States and rightly so. But I do still wonder if companies in general can get away without registering from the point of view of Community legislation? Is there nothing the Commission can do about this during the course of its duties?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, a huge task has been carried out by a lot of people over many years. In spite of this, the compromise now before us is, in my view, unacceptable. The proposal would mean that vote differentiation in the matter of shares could be permitted to remain for a transitional period, as an exception to the general rule. Subsequently, a revision would take place, involving a review of the system of A and B shares and also of other forms of shareholding. Many believe that this has rescued the Nordic system of shares with different voting values. Those who maintain that this is a good compromise fail, however, to appreciate the issue of principle surrounding whether the EU is entitled to interfere in how shareholders in private companies choose to organise themselves. I find it regrettable to see so many in this Parliament so casually accepting infringements of the right of ownership. No one mentions the crucial issue of the principle of respect for the right of ownership. It is the business of no one other than the shareholders themselves how they organise their shares. That is a basic prerequisite of the market economy. If the compromise is approved, this means in practice that Parliament says it is acceptable to appropriate assets. If someone has bought a share with a higher voting value at market price, what right does the EU or any state then have quite simply to rob this person of this investment by saying that what he has paid for no longer has any value? The Swedish Government maintains that this revision clause is a victory because the revision is to embrace more forms of shareholding than simply the system of shares with different voting values. That may be the case, but the Swedish Government no doubt knows as well as anyone else that, in five years’ time when the revision takes place, no one will either be able, or wish, to investigate the multiplicity of forms of shareholding that exist within the EU. Presumably, the discussion would, then too, be focused upon the system of A and B shares. The reason for that is simple. Different voting values are a clear and straightforward system. Unlike with most other systems of shareholding, it is very simple to see how many votes a type of share corresponds to, and it is at least as easy to see what the share is worth in the market. There are no pitfalls or secrets in this system. The main aim of the new regulations governing takeover bids is that the EU should be an open market and that obstacles to takeovers should be removed. The fact is, however, that the number of takeovers in countries in which different voting values are applied is not in any way lower than the number in countries where this system is not permitted. In summary, the proposal now before us is, in my opinion, unacceptable, for, in the first place, it infringes the right of ownership; secondly, does not respect agreements entered into; and, thirdly, identifies vote-differentiated shares as an obstacle to takeovers.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we know from estimates by Europol that approximately 30% of all crime can already be attributed to organised crime. We also know that, in the meantime, organised crime has earned billions of euros in various sectors. For example – and these too are figures from confirmed sources – human traffickers alone launder some EUR 1.1 billion from their work, namely getting illegal immigrants over the border, and some EUR 51 billion are laundered in the European Union from drug dealing in eastern Europe every year. All this money – and this is the worrying thing – gets into legal circulation. Once it does so, it damages the legal economy and undermines our whole social system. Organised crime does all this by using the instruments of money laundering. New methods have been introduced, because the old ones do not work any more. New professions are being used, or rather abused and involved in all cases. As a result, the situation is now such that we need to create a new instrument, because we can no longer manage with the old 1991 directive. Hence the proposal for this new directive, where the list of offences no longer refers to drug-related crime and has been extended to all forms of organised crime, taking account, of course, of all professions and branches of the economy which run the risk of becoming involved in the business of money laundering. But, in creating this new directive, we must bear one thing in mind: the objective is to fight organised crime and the instruments which we create must be practicable, which is why I emphatically support what Mr Lehne has done in his report, because he is pursuing precisely these objectives, unlike the Council, which has left certain aspects out of consideration; at any rate, it appears to have lost sight of the practicability factor. The Lehne proposal – as Mr Lehne himself has pointed out – is a proposal which does not affect normal citizens looking for an apartment somewhere; on the contrary, it gets to the crux of the matter: only when a transaction is completed need identification be requested. It refers to orders of magnitude which are relevant to the money laundering business and which do not affect the man in the street when he pops into a bank somewhere. It includes all professions which use services such as banks. In other words, it is a practicable proposal. I therefore hope that it will receive Parliament’s full and broad support because it will allow us to create an efficient instrument in the fight against organised crime.

Political group: PPE-DE
This is what I call harassment in the workplace. I cannot speak without people smoking behind me and that gives me an asthma attack and that is harassment. I congratulate Mr Andersson on his report. It is important for action at both national and European level because, as we have heard, 12 million people are harassed or bullied in the workplace every year. There are many forms of harassment and as I said, smoking in the workplace in no-smoking areas is a form of harassment. It can also have devastating effects, both physically and pyschologically. The level of stress caused by bullying and harassment in a workplace is tremendous. Disabled people, women and in particular, ethnic minorities, suffer a great deal. They can be doubly discriminated against and are harassed simply because they come from those disadvantaged, discriminated groups. I am also glad that Mr Andersson referred to those on short-term contracts because again we have evidence that those too, are bullied. But can I turn quickly to the reason for the split votes that the has asked for on paragraphs 8 and 13. I believe that it is a role of the European Union to have common guidelines, best practice and benchmarking across the Member States, but I do not believe that we need more binding legislation: that is a role for the Member States and a question of subsidiarity. So although I agree with much of Mr Andersson's report, I disagree with the fact that we should have binding legislation and that is why we have called for the split vote.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President-in-Office, you said that the Council had not discussed the legal nature of the intervention in Iraq; however, the Greek Presidency, in its declaration on 16 April, essentially legalised the Anglo-American intervention – or what I would call incursion – and the Council in Thessaloniki took a similar position. This is, of course, manifestly opposed to the disposition of the peoples of the Member States of the European Union, who have demonstrated in every country against this murderous incursion. Is the Council not concerned about the gap between its deeds and the peoples' disposition?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, as rapporteur for the report on the relevant recommendation to the Council, I am well satisfied today by the positive opinion of the committee on the accession of Croatia to the European Union. My question, Commissioner, is not difficult, but I understand the difficulty which you have in giving a specific reply. Will there, in your opinion, be some timetable up to the final stage of the accession of Croatia? I also have a question for Mr Verheugen: does he believe in the light of his experience that, by the time Romania and Bulgaria join in 2007, Croatia will be ready with these countries to become a member of the European Union?

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Figueiredo for a very important and sound report. The report is no less important, given the fact that the ideas and objectives concerning social integration and social solidarity were highlighted two years ago in connection with the Lisbon decisions. A lot has happened since then, however, and the situation has changed. Many of the governments that contributed to the decision in Lisbon no longer exist for, almost every month, there are new shifts in political power in the governments of the Member States. That is worrying for, as Mr Pronk pointed out, responsibility for social security and integration lies with the Member States or at lower levels, resulting in a need for governments in the Member States that are concerned to prioritise solidarity and social integration. If, as I fear, such governments do not exist, account will have to be taken of social mobilisation from below. In these circumstances, women’s movements, immigrant organisations, local workers’ movements and other organisations and movements which give priority to social solidarity will have to organise themselves and conduct a political struggle. Simply being generous or having good intentions is not enough. We know that there are antagonisms and conflicting interests and priorities in political life. The poor and the deprived are not the main priorities of those who possess political power. I therefore believe that we in Europe are on the way towards a grim political situation with a wider gulf than we are used to between those who hold power and those who have major and difficult social problems. I therefore think it important that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, above all, support Mrs Figueiredo’s report. I also hope that this will be the case tomorrow when we vote on the report.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Doha should have been the development cycle. Yet what have the developing countries gained from Doha? I do not share other Members’ optimism on this point. For instance, the agreement on access to medicines, which appeared to be a victory, is really a decoy to lure the media and the developing countries. Presented as a vital stake at this conference and as a major concession to the developing countries, the clarification of the TRIPS agreement and the interpretation of it – which has always been our interpretation – are admittedly a political victory, but that victory changes nothing from the legal point of view. It is of no value before the body that settles disputes within the WTO, and, as Mrs Kinnock has pointed out, the question remains unresolved for those countries which have no production capacity. For the time being, nothing allows them to use compulsory licensing in order to arrange for the medicines they need to be manufactured by third parties, and this point was emphasised at the recent conference in Ouagadougou. In the same way, the derogation and the WTO’s reciprocity rule, which were granted at the last minute to signatory states of the Cotonou agreement for a period of eight years, appeared to be a positive achievement. In reality, however, that authorisation, which the ACP states had been waiting for for months, seems more like blackmail as far as they are concerned. They were obliged to sign the final Doha declaration or risk having their request refused. The gains were therefore minimal, and were used by the countries of the West, which are united in their desire to launch a new round, as a means of buying what they wanted. In reality, what happened at Doha was more like a cynical play at the theatre. We are becoming increasingly committed to unbridled liberalisation and, as we shall continue to insist, a fundamental reform of the WTO really is essential.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, we have set ourselves two objectives, namely to guarantee fishing activities along our coasts whilst also preserving the breeding of fish stocks. These two objectives are shared by all. We had to make a choice, as the rapporteur has, to either change the entire system, at the risk of destabilising everything or to adapt what we could. We chose the second proposal of the two, which was also my preferred option. Two principles should then be respected: firstly, that of access to waters – to the 6-12 mile coastal band, I believe – this is already provided, and secondly, the principle of relative stability, which was also taken into consideration. These two choices are fundamental and I hope that Parliament will ratify these. I will mention three of the changes that we must make. I am convinced that it is better to place TACs and quotas at the heart of the common fisheries policy, as they offer the greatest guarantees, particularly if they are multiannual. The second change is if multiannual guidance programmes (MAGPs) are retained – and they should be – we must assess the consequences they have for the safety of fishermen. Last year, in Brittany alone, which is where I live in France, we lost 25 men at sea. I imagine that you have a similar situation where you live. This is a considerable number, and it is obviously unacceptable. I think that we must step up safety at sea and enable our fishermen to continue to build new boats. We must not allow fishing fleets to become out-dated because this increases risks at sea. My last point concerns penalties. A good regulation is one that is applied to all equally. Fishermen feel that, even when two identical mistakes are made, the penalties imposed are different. I think that the Commission must pay particular care and attention to these three changes.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, Commissioner, I am one of those who take the view that, where the global repercussions of drug addiction for public health, crime and insecurity are concerned, it would be preferable, wherever possible, to develop European approaches. I therefore welcome this proposal for a recommendation and the excellent report by Mrs Malliori. Our policy for combating drug addiction has proved to be a failure: the prohibitionist approach has given trafficking oxygen, allowing it to thrive and to make ever-greater profits, boosting both organised and petty crime, corrupting regimes and humiliating us for being powerless to do anything about it. Furthermore, the deterioration of drug addicts’ health is of concern, but also the health risks arising from infection such as HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, as well as the increasing number of deaths from overdoses and poisoning. Faced with such problems, it is impossible to be absolutely sure of what approach to take. We must, however, move in a new direction. Although I believe that the debate must continue calmly in the United Nations on the impact on public health and crime of the possible decriminalisation of some drugs, I do not think that this should be our priority. Our priority should be, firstly, to draw up rational prevention policies based on scientific knowledge of each drug and not on an emotional response and on the radical approach which, by treating all drugs equally, ultimately removes the credibility of preventive action. Our second priority is to develop a risk-reduction policy. For those infected for whom free drug treatments have not achieved positive results, methadone substitution programmes must be pursued. It is also important that experiments involving administering heroin under medical supervision to patients with a long history of failure to respond to treatment and chronic illnesses are pursued and implemented in other States. We must also be able to undertake an evaluation of these results. Many of these experiments have shown positive results in reducing crime, the number of overdoses by poisoning and the number of those infected with HIV, tuberculosis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, when we discussed this in committee, we assumed that this debate would take place in January. After all, this is a second reading. Discussions are still being held between the Council and the European Parliament which may make a conciliation procedure unnecessary. For this reason, I think that it would be wise to extend the deadline – if need be – and to debate the Peijs report in January.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is just one detail I deplore in the whole of this report, namely the term ‘forced prostitution’, used in the justification for Amendment No 1. It is a bizarre distinction between voluntary and forced prostitution with which we are persisting in this House. That is the only thing I deplore, and I hope that it will not affect organisations that work on one aspect or another of the issue of prostitution. I think it is quite excellent to compare and evaluate the various national legislations. All I can do is mention the Swedish law prohibiting the purchase of sexual services and, of course, the Austrian legislation. The provisions of the Austrian legislation may be compared with a case in which someone goes into a restaurant and begins hitting people. The person is, of course, shown out and probably apprehended by the police, and is not welcome in the restaurant on future occasions. In the same way, someone who hits women and children in the home should not be welcome there again. Just like restaurant customers, women and children must be able to remain where they are and return to a place of safety, while the man should not be able to do so. I also think that an information campaign directed at our legal bodies is a very good idea. In the last six months, it has emerged in Sweden that, despite an intensive debate, rape victims are treated in an incredibly insulting way. I can make another comparison: that with a man in an Armani suit and wearing a Rolex watch who is walking around drunk in the middle of the night. He is never asked what he is doing out at that time or why he is intoxicated. Nor does anyone suggest that he might be inviting crime. That is, however, what happens in the case of women who are raped. Finally, I would again address the issue of the budget. That is precisely what everyone has talked about. I believe that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities is sometimes accused of being naive and ill at ease on budget issues, but it is our task here to deal with such issues. We are not only talking about enlargement of the EU, but also about the tasks for the DAPHNE Programmes.

Political group: GUE-NGL