GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to salute the initiators of the first World Congress against the Death Penalty, which I consider the crowning achievement of abolitionists the world over. Very important work was accomplished during those three days and I also salute the personal commitment of our President who, with her counterpart from the Council of Europe, called on the governments to establish a world moratorium on executions. That moratorium was signed by the 40 countries present, here, in this very Chamber. Fighting for the abolition of the death penalty – as has been said here – means fighting to strengthen human dignity and extend human rights. I think the European Union is doing that and it must continue its efforts, but I also think it is sometimes important, in an assembly like the United Nations, to put one’s own house in order first. By that I mean that countries like Turkey, Russia and Armenia, members of the Council of Europe and applicants to join the European Union, must eliminate the death penalty from their respective criminal codes. That, in my opinion, is a sine qua non of whether or not they become members and a guarantee that this fundamental principle of human rights is respected within the European Union. Then, as Robert Badinter has underlined, the debate has moved forward enormously. One hundred countries have already abolished the death penalty. Even in the United States, where 80% of people were in favour of the death penalty five or six years ago, that figure is down to 66% today. That means that the struggle is making progress, and so much the better. However, that has not prevented the existence of another highly symbolic case in the battle against the death penalty: the case of Moumia Abou Jamal. From amongst the 3 700 people who are still on death row in the United States, Moumia Abou Jamal stands out as a symbol because he is in prison and on death row for being black, and in that respect his case reminds me a little of the struggle of Nelson Mandela. He is in prison for being an intellectual writer, and in that he reminds me a little of Solzhenitsyn, and because he dared to write at a time when no one was writing against the atrocities of the Philadelphia police. And finally he was a militant, an activist as they say in English. He now finds himself on death row for these three reasons and I think it would be a marvellous signal if a country like the United States, which claims to be the greatest democracy in the world, were to abolish the death penalty and free Moumia Abou Jamal. Imagine the weight that would carry for countries like China and the other countries that continue this barbaric practice! I am counting massively on the Belgian Presidency to move this idea forward with the full support of all of us here.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, we agree with Mr Prodi, the President of the Commission, when he tells us that the EU is to have the most modern administration in the world. If this goal is to be achieved, though, all the administrative units must be modernised; not just the Commission’s main offices, but also the subordinate offices, the agencies, and I can also see that the establishment, organisation and control of these is flourishing unchecked. There is too little transparency; often there is neither the necessary efficiency nor adequate control, and that is why the agencies of the future need to be put on a new footing. In its report, Parliament now demands that an agency should be established by a law adopted by way of the codecision procedure. The joint involvement of the Commission, Parliament and the Council in this decision must become the norm in future. The legislative act of establishment must also stipulate where the agency is to be based. I could spend all my speaking time on what went on between Helsinki and Parma with regard to the food agency. That was a tragedy. Nothing of the sort must be allowed to happen again, and the choice of headquarters must be made by reference to competence and cost-efficiency. We have to cut back the number of types of agencies; having fifteen agencies divided up into twelve types makes for an impossible situation. As these agencies are subject to the Commission, it is the Commission that should appoint their directors. I will conclude by thanking Mrs Almeida Garrett for this report, and by expressing the hope that it will get through. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I fully endorse President Prodi’s frank, well-balanced report and Commissioner Solbes’ recommendations. The need, which I fully endorse, for flexible application of the Stability and Growth Pact and for coordination of economic, social and environmental policies, starting with the eurozone, has, however, been completely disregarded during the recent years of recession, not least because of the serious forecasting errors made by the European Commission and the European Central Bank, which actually discouraged any attempts to promote or coordinate an active, counter-cyclical economic policy shared by the Union’s governments. Moreover, it is true that the flexible, selective management of the Stability and Growth Pact cannot be left to the discretion of the individual governments, for this could result in the weakening of social cohesion and, at worst, higher inflation. I therefore support the proposal to include the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, in other words the programming of public investment in the areas of research, lifelong training and environmental improvement and the creation of integrated European transport and telecommunications networks, as an additional objective of the Stability and Growth Pact, subtracting the sum of these investments from the total budgetary deficit of Member States’ governments. This decision requires, of necessity, strong support from the European Community. Indeed, the Community must be able, through the Commission, to assess, ex ante, the compatibility and conformance of the investments with the objective of making the European Union the most competitive and dynamic economy based on knowledge, full employment and sustainable development in the world by 2010, facilitating the coordination of these investments.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I am surprised that Members can joke or argue about the fact that a Member of Parliament has been arrested on European Union soil. It would appear to be a very serious incident which, moreover, is linked precisely to matters we have been discussing for some time in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. To get to the point, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market proposes not to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Ribeiro e Castro. This proposal – and this is what I would like Members to consider – is based on the contents of the Treaties and on certain well-established principles. Firstly, immunity is a guarantee of the independence of the European Parliament and its Members in relation to all other authorities; secondly, relinquishment of parliamentary immunity by the Member concerned has no legal effect; thirdly, immunity is valid throughout all sessions, including while Members are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament; fourthly, the immunity of Members of the European Parliament is independent of national parliamentary procedures, even if the law of the State of origin is applied; fifthly, the political aspect of the case, the possibility of fumus persecutionis, any political motives behind the request for waiver, the amount of time that has elapsed between the alleged facts and the request for waiver and the seriousness of the charge are always taken into consideration; sixthly, sometimes the punishment for the alleged facts differs from State to State; seventhly, the aim is certainly to ensure equal treatment for all Members of different nationalities. On the basis of these principles, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market calls upon the House to adopt the Zimeray report. However, Mr President, I must take this opportunity to stress two points, which, I repeat, it is the duty of Parliament and all its Members to consider fully. The provisions of Articles 9 and 10 refer to the beginning of the European Community, when the Members of this Parliament were members of national parliaments, and, in that context, the reference to national immunities is clear. However, we have to be aware that, nowadays, the European Parliament plays a major role in the balance between the institutions, and I feel that it is extremely important to make the European Parliament fully independent of the Member States. Parliament must always be informed of any proceedings to be initiated against its Members, and if the judicial authority of the place where the alleged facts have taken place does not inform Parliament then it is the responsibility of the Members to do so directly, for it is Parliament which has to decide which provisions should apply, as, moreover, is the case in some European countries. Mr President, I trust that I shall not have to apply for political asylum in a country which is not my own at any point in the future, but, above all, I feel that the statement delivered in the Chamber on the Member who has been arrested in Scotland should be deemed to be clear notification by a competent authority.

Political group: PPE-DE
I am sorry I could not vote in favour of the report which contains the European Parliament’s proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference, despite the efforts made, especially by the rapporteur, Mr Dimitrakopoulos, to humour small Member States and look after their interests to some extent. It is inadmissible to seek to cut the smallest national delegation, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg’s, by a third, without giving any details about reductions to the large delegations. There are other excesses in this veritable shopping list. I denounced them yesterday in my speech and Parliament has adopted them, in particular as regards the composition of the Commission and the decision-making procedures. Unanimity cannot be limited to constitutional decisions. It is completely unrealistic and utopian to think that the members of national parliaments will ratify a treaty which contains such dismantling of their rights, as useless as it is unacceptable, and such a veritable castration of the national parliaments. The Intergovernmental Conference is not intended to increase the powers of the Union; the point of the operation is to improve the functioning of a Union enlarged from 15 to 26 or even 30 Member States. Through these excesses a majority of this Parliament has done Europe a disservice.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, as a member of the Group of the and as a Member of the Basque Parliament, I must point out firstly that the European Union communicated to the Government of Nicaragua, by diplomatic means, on 18 November, the need for a rapid solution to the issue we are dealing with today and to remove the obstacles suffered by the Republic of Nicaragua’s Court of Auditors and to tell them, very categorically, that if there is no transparency, they may lose European Union funds. We can clearly question the means which Mr Jarquín has used to an absolutely legal end, that is, investigating the rampant corruption in Nicaragua, a corruption which extends to the very highest authorities and which, for example, has multiplied the assets of the President of the Republic by a thousand. What is absolutely obvious to any impartial observer, however, is that, in this case, the intention has been precisely to prevent the investigation of corruption with the collaboration, furthermore, of the Sandinistas, and to get rid of the person who was going to be leader of the opposition in the Republic of Nicaragua. I hope that the European Union will intervene in this matter. That is what is required.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, before the fisheries debate in which I too will be taking part, I would draw your attention to the fact that this afternoon’s agenda features the Stauner report on the Community action programme Leonardo da Vinci. I understand that further research is being carried out, as a result of which it would probably not be wise to vote on it at 5 p.m. today. I would ask you to consider, together with rapporteur Stauner, whether this topic is ready for a vote today. I have a feeling that it is not.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Morillon has made a comment under Recital D in his report which should, I think, play an important role in this debate. Mr Morillon says that Turkey should try not to perceive the European Union as an exclusive Christian club which wants to keep it, Turkey, out. This premise presupposes that the opposite holds true within the European Union, i.e. that we are not an exclusive Christian club which wants, can or should exclude Turkey on relativistic religious or cultural grounds. The premise should be that a country with a laicistic constitution inhabited predominantly by Moslems which is based on the values on which the European Union itself is founded – i.e. freedom, equality and tolerance – could enrich the European Union. The European Union is not founded on religious values, it is founded on values which we owe to the Enlightenment and which, quite independently of the religious leanings of a person or a country and its inhabitants, find their way into the constitutions of the Member States and, as we have seen during today's debate on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, into the EU's perception of fundamental rights. This means that, as a democratic state under the rule of law with separation of powers and fundamental values as we understand them, Turkey will enrich the European Union. At the same time, however, it is clear from Mr Morillon's report that Turkey is nowhere near meeting these demands. The Copenhagen criteria are, admittedly, economic criteria, but they are also criteria which are centred around precisely these points. The question is, how far have tolerance, democratic rule of law, separation of powers and respect for the separation of powers been put into practice in Turkey? And the answer is, as Mr Morillon's report makes clear, not far enough. Too little progress has been made and Turkey must do better.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, on such a sensitive issue as that of the urgent subject under consideration, we are genuinely perplexed. There is absolutely no doubt that the act itself is to be utterly condemned. However, to use this to create a theory which is tantamount to a political attack, which, in effect, this is, on the Catholic Church and the Holy See is a wholly inappropriate action in respect of the moral authority exercised by the Holy See throughout the world. What we find even more worrying is the way in which the concept of accountability is being used to state that what happens to a man must be considered to be the moral responsibility of the Holy See. We are truly perplexed because, if such sensitive matters are exploited in this way, we will ultimately lose sight of one of the tasks that the Church is carrying out with such difficulty in the world, the safeguarding of human dignity.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I should firstly like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mrs Redondo, and the rapporteur, Mr Kreissl-Dörfler, for an outstanding piece of work. Unfortunately, the work has not shown unambiguously that there is any alternative to the present non-vaccination policy. It is very clear that there are neither vaccines nor laboratory capacity and that, overall, everything is missing that would be necessary to enable us to abandon the non-vaccination policy. This means that, if a decision on vaccination is to be made, it will be a political decision and not a decision based on scientific and veterinary fact. I want finally to say a little about the consequences in terms of trade policy. The reactions have been very clear. When there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the importing countries – or third countries – exclude all imports of fresh meat from the whole of the EU. The Commission must be required very clearly to ensure that third countries, particularly the United States, accept that the EU consists of Member States and of regions, especially following enlargement in 2004. If foot and mouth disease occurs in a particular country or region, it is not therefore necessary to halt all imports of fresh meat from the whole of the EU. On the contrary, supply and demand become totally chaotic when that happens. That is why I want very clearly to call upon the Commission to renegotiate the agreements, which are nowhere near specific enough at present. If a new case of foot and mouth disease should occur, the agreements must be in place, particularly with the United States, so that exports from those countries that do not have foot and mouth disease can continue.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, with regard to the continued production of tobacco in Granada, I would like to know if the accession of Poland, a producer country, or trade with Zimbabwe, could lead to a reduction in the quantity of tobacco grown in the province of Granada. The first part of the Commissioner’s response, with regard to women, is highly unsatisfactory. I can provide you with the number of women working in the tobacco sector in Granada, but it is surprising that, when the level of cultivation in Europe is so high, you, as European Commissioner for this sector, do not know the number of women – which is what I was asking you – or the number of young farmers. In any case, I would ask you to answer my supplementary question, as it comes from the tobacco growers of Granada themselves, who are concerned because it is rumoured there that the accession of Poland and trade with Zimbabwe will be detrimental to them. It remains to be seen whether you can allay their fears.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I strongly regret that I was unable to vote in favour of the resolution on Iraq, not because I am a warmonger or because I am in favour of intervention outside the rules of law, but because all of the amendments that have been adopted considerably distorted the original intentions of those who drew up the compromise text and led to a text that considerably dilutes Iraqi responsibilities, which appears to exonerate Iraq from playing any part in the terrorist threat and which, I am convinced, will be received in Iraq with sniggers from Saddam Hussein, not to mention an even more irreverent attitude towards texts produced by Parliament.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, also on the question of the security of the House, you will recall that on 28 November 2000, the Turkish Foreign Minister addressed the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy of this House and he was interrupted by demonstrators. This was a cause for great concern. At the time, we drew the attention of the President to this matter and she promised she would look into it and find out what the circumstances were, how the demonstrators had got into Parliament, and take appropriate steps to ensure that such things did not happen again. In the context of what we have been discussing, the security of this House, I wonder if you would follow this up and see what steps have been taken to improve security and report on that particular incident last November.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, allow me to put a question to the Commissioner, because I am rather annoyed. He said that the Commission had no intention of changing the common organisation of the market in pigmeat. But the title reads 'on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat'. Then what, pray, has the Commission presented to us? If you want fewer radical changes than we do, then we can come to an agreement, but if you do not want any changes, then the text is a farce. Perhaps you could explain. If you present Parliament with a proposal, Parliament takes the liberty of introducing its proposals. As is our right.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I have a lot of trust in the Council, especially in Mr Roche, and understood his speech to mean that he is in favour of Parliament being fully entitled to take decisions in all the areas to which we have referred. Judging by what I hear my fellow-MEPs saying, they are less trusting. I would ask the President-in-Office of the Council – and this is my first point – to say, here and now, loud and clear, whether he acknowledges Parliament’s full decision-making rights in all these matters, be they the ‘Quick Start’ list or any other list. My second point is that the committee, when it was under Mr Costa’s chairmanship, agreed that this House is not so irresponsible that anyone can, by hook or by crook, add on his or her pet projects; on the contrary, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism added a limited number of projects for which there was a rational justification. If I may mention just two of them, out of – I think – about six, which enhance Europe’s cohesion and unity, not only in and around the new Member States, but also in and around the future accession countries in the Balkans, we were talking in terms of lines running across Austria from Prague via Linz, and another running from the North via Vienna to Graz and then on to Croatia – in other words, lines that make a great deal of sense. I really do think that this House has, over the past months, shown itself to be responsible, in that not even in the run-up to an election does it add on one project after another indiscriminately. Parliament’s right to share in decisions must, however, be guaranteed in full. It would be a good thing if the President-in-Office’s ambivalent answer today could become a clear and unequivocal statement to the effect that the Council does indeed acknowledge Parliament’s power of codecision, because this House demonstrates a high degree of responsibility and comes up with a few extra ideas for these important investment projects. After all, the Council and its Presidency ought to have an interest in getting a few more good ideas, and you will get them from this House’s Committee on Transport.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I fully share the hope and the opinion of Mrs Morgantini and Mr Brie, whose first amendment clearly states that the Union’s aim must not merely be to establish a code of conduct on arms exports, but to work for international disarmament and to end the arms race altogether. This should be the European Union’s fundamental objective. Whatever the case, arms exports exist and it is therefore useful and it is a step forward to have a code of conduct on arms exports, which sometimes run counter to the principles that should be the identifying features of the European Union: conflict prevention and the defence of human rights. We should therefore take this opportunity to make the code more efficient and to ensure that our young soldiers engaged in peace missions do not have to confront, as they occasionally do, arms exported by the European Union. There are four issues which we should examine thoroughly. Firstly, given the diversity of policies within the Fifteen Member States of the European Union on controlling arms exports, we should seek to bring about the extension of the binding agreement that was signed by six Member States in July of this year. There should be greater transparency to improve monitoring of this trade, a legally-binding code and, finally, Mr President, a ban on the manufacture, promotion or sale of any equipment designed for torture, cruelty or the death penalty.

Political group: GUE-NGL