GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, there was to have been a debate on the question of football violence. The events last night in Copenhagen underline the importance of the European Parliament having this debate, as it decided to do earlier in the week. Because of the natural difficulties about the location of the matches under Euro 2000, the PPE-ED Group as a whole has decided not to support this resolution and to withdraw it. On the other hand, the British delegation, which is now 36 members, has retabled the resolution in its original form. Mr President, I ask you to rule it admissible for this debate to now take place, as was the wish of the House earlier in the week.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I wish to raise an issue which has been brought to my attention because of my work with refugees. It concerns an individual of Iranian origin living in the UK who, on a visit to Syria, was abducted by the Syrian authorities and handed over to the Iranians. His name is Jamil Bassam and he has been living in the UK for 25 years. He visited Syria with all the appropriate documents and, along with a colleague, Ibrahim Khodabandeh, was abducted by the Syrian authorities and handed over to Iranian officials. Given the disquiet voiced in this House on many occasions about the situation in Iran, and the way in which political opponents are treated there, this is obviously a matter of some concern. I am asking you, therefore, to raise this issue with the Iranian authorities and do what you can to secure his safe release and that of his colleague.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, your comments this morning on both subjects showed that we need not only rapid data highways, but also efficient air transport in Europe to remain competitive. It is obvious that this will lead, in our densely populated States, to increasing noise pollution for citizens. I support all those who have stated here that solutions can only be found jointly. I come from the region around the Cologne-Bonn airport, an extremely densely populated region. We have tried to restrict the noise pollution for citizens. Every major attempt was simply answered by the companies with the announcement that they would switch to another airport. The airports of Liège and Maastricht are within a radius of almost 200 km. The companies are really not bothered about where they start and land their cargo planes, in particular. For this reason, I would like to urgently request that we find joint solutions which achieve both objectives: a competitive airline industry in Europe and adequate noise protection for our citizens in the vicinity of airports. However, I have surmised, Commissioner, from the Commission’s report that some basic conditions for this have still not been met. Firstly, it is obvious from the report that there is still no common method for calculating aircraft noise and, secondly, there is still no common method for monitoring basic data. I therefore come to my request: you have proposed specific measures to the Commission in your report. You have also set deadlines: the year 2001 for expiry of the old specification on noise emissions for old aircraft equipment. You have announced a strategy, which I welcome, for how the burden on particularly busy airports can be eased on the basis of objective data. However, you have not set any deadline for this. My request to the Commission is that, together with the regions, you set deadlines, in the interests of both the companies and the citizens affected, which we can all work towards in a team effort.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal being examined today is aimed at establishing a harmonised legal framework for the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals. On this subject, it has to be stated that the European Union is still a very weak vessel. We can only regret the hypocrisy of European policies. While all countries see development aid as a means of combating illegal immigration, cooperation budgets are reduced and, with not one bit of responsibility accepted for training, there are no qualms about participating in the brain drain. There is no hesitation in cherry-picking the most promising immigrants, or those who serve our interests. As for the others, the re-admission clauses in the cooperation agreements are used in order all the better to expel those who have no papers but who are already settled in their social and professional lives and participating fully in the construction of Europe. Without a thought for the future of immigrants or their protection or even for the respect of their fundamental rights to health, education and accommodation, the economic and demographic needs of the Member States are satisfied by making use of controlled immigration that is liable to be ruthlessly exploited and manipulated and that mainly serves to make up for the labour shortage and to compensate for the demographic imbalance. Yes, Mrs Terrón i Cusí is right. The immigration issue must be part of an overall, long-term vision of the EU’s policy as a community. In this context, there is good reason for tackling the issues relating to the management of migration flows. These include essential policy on visas, policy on unifying families – particularly in relation to the rights associated with European citizenship – and the new definition of development aid, implying genuine cooperation. Although one of the Tampere conclusions is about ensuring equitable treatment for third-country nationals, this objective proves to be far from having been achieved when closer attention is given not only to the conditions of entry and residence but also to citizens’ rights, particularly freedom of movement, the right to live as part of a family and those rights that should be linked to residence rather than nationality. If European legislation enables workers from third countries to be turned into cheap labour or a kind of cannon fodder on the field of insecure employment, the European Union will lose all the credibility that it has built up over many years through its programmes to combat forms of discrimination, programmes that it is duty-bound to defend on the basis of its ideals of justice and freedom. Everyone knows that a citizens’ Europe cannot be built upon forms of discrimination that give rise to injustice and exclusion and that engender racism. It is therefore our responsibility to work for a humanitarian and Community-based policy on immigration, and one that respects fundamental rights and reaffirms immigration as an opportunity for Europe. IN THE CHAIR: MR PACHECO PEREIRAVice-President

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I want to pay a compliment to the four speakers before me in the debate who took part in the negotiations on this interinstitutional agreement and particularly to commend, as Nick Clegg did, Monica Frassoni's report and its explanatory statement to the House. However, I want to slightly disagree with some of the points that have just been made. When we talk about better legislation, it seems to me that suddenly there descends upon this 21st Century parliament the feel that the late-18th Century Beccaria and Bentham walk the stage with us. Legislation is a science which can be improved, because we all know what the good of the human condition is and all we have to do is devise technical means to achieve it. We know, as Mr Medina Ortega has just said, that this is not, in fact, the case. The duties of the members of a democratic legislature are not to seek a single institutional view. The judges of the members of a democratic legislature are to address the dialectic of contemporary politics, to express the points upon which we disagree and not the points upon which we agree. Out of disagreement or debate comes perhaps, in the end, wisdom and decision, but we do not start out on the assumption that there is one right answer and it is a technical question of how to achieve it. Nor can we reasonably start out from the assumption that impact assessment is easy. We have 'legislation missiles' which make impact as they land and through that we can tell what the impact is. Everybody who has studied the sociology of law is well aware that this is not true. What legislation has actually brought about remains controversial for years after it has been passed. There are many strands in the effects of legislation. We do not even always agree on the juridical impact, far less the economic impact of legislation. A week or so ago, we had a huge argument about the Copyright Directive because people were not sure, not about the cost, but what it would actually mean in its implications before the courts of law. Legal certainty is a myth and an illusion. The most that good legislators can do is diminish legal uncertainty and we should approach our task with due modesty in that regard. That brings me back to the point about subsidiarity which matters to us all greatly. Impact assessment taken on the grand scale seems to suppose that all law impacts equally and in the same way on all parts of this vast and diverse Union. What an absurd view. It is not true. Every time you look at a real case, you find that it impacts differently in different places. This is what makes subsidiarity so important. I strongly commend Monica Frassoni's report and its explanatory statement. I shall vote for it, but I express some doubts about the underlying suppositions of this debate.

Political group: Verts-ALE
I voted against the adoption of the report by Mr Pérez Royo on the proposal for a Council directive to ensue effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community. The text of the amended proposal does not mention the agreement reached on this issue at the Feira European Council nor does it mention, more specifically, the following crucial point, which is worded as follows: ‘Once sufficient reassurances with regard to the application of the same measures in dependent or associated territories and of equivalent measures in the named countries have been obtained, and on the basis of a report, the Council will decide on the adoption and implementation of the directive no later than 31 December 2002, and do so by unanimity.’ This has become an essential condition for the entry into force of the directive.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I gave the wrong information. I shall correct that now: Real Madrid 2, Bayern Leverkusen 1!

Political group: PPE-DE
This week we heard the first political cry of the new-born Europe. By staunchly and speedily denouncing the participation of Jörg Haider’s xenophobic and anti-European party in the Austrian government, a situation without precedent since the second world war, the European Union has come into its political birthright and has confirmed that it is not merely an economic and financial Community, a large market, a “Europe of shopkeepers”. It is a part of its future which is at stake right now, part of its very essence, its heart and soul. The European Parliament was the first to speak up. The appeal by the European Socialists, on the initiative of Olivier Duhamel, raised awareness and enabled there to be a firm and immediate political response to this unheard of and intolerable situation. A firm attitude which the 14 European States have demonstrated unanimously and promptly, through Mr Guterres, by condemning the risk of the Austrian political situation getting out of control. This courageous stance turns a new page in the construction of Europe. A return to the roots, at last, for a Community built on the basis of the determination to turn our backs on a past history marred by hatred and exclusion and of adherence to the humanist values of openness and tolerance. Europe has managed to stand up to condemn unacceptable events. However, as it lacks the legal instruments to support this political will, since the sanctions stipulated under Article 7 of the Treaties are virtually impossible to apply, will it be able to keep its head high in the face of the threat of the systematic blocking of its entire institutional structure? The whole credibility of Europe is at stake today, before we invite the recent and still vulnerable democracies of the former eastern bloc to join us tomorrow. From now on Europe must put its words into action if it wishes to show the world the scope of its rediscovered ambition.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, this is the fourth time that an amendment from the EPP Group has been voted against by the EPP Group. I should like to ask that group in future to check how many of individual Members can table amendments in plenary – 15 different Members of the EPP have tabled amendments to this report, supposedly in the name of the group before wasting our time in plenary. (Mixed reactions) - Relating to paragraph 17

Political group: PSE
Madam President, I should like first of all to thank Commissioner Nielson and also express my thanks for two commendable reports. A clear agenda for sustainable development was set as long as ten years ago in Rio but, since then, developments have, however, largely been in the opposite direction. Poverty is spreading, and the gulf between rich and poor is growing every single day. The use of natural resources is increasing every day, there has been no reduction in humanly induced climate change and, every day, species of animals and plants disappear forever. There really is a vital need for us in the EU to assume a global responsibility at the World Conference in Johannesburg. What needs to be prepared is a global agreement with a practical work programme for sustainable development over many years to come, stating a number of precise objectives and precise deadlines. Allow me to specify some individual and crucial features. Partly through giving the developing countries real opportunities in world trade, we should conduct a pro-active campaign against poverty and hunger in order to fulfil the pledges to the UN concerning development aid. We should break the link between economic growth and increased environmental damage, namely through the increased use of renewable energy and cleaner technology. We should ensure that, in all policy areas, we give consideration to sustainability, whether we are talking about legislation, trade agreements, investment or development aid. We should ensure that we have better and more reliable methods of implementing the international environmental and social agreements. Finally, I think it important that we establish more specific objectives for the proper use of natural resources and for safeguarding the diversity of the natural environment. It might be said that, with the lack of preparation so far for the world conference and with a Bush administration in the United States, there is every good reason for fearing a fiasco in Johannesburg. We Europeans face an enormous task in securing a positive and binding result in Johannesburg.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, like my fellow Member Mr Peterle before me, I would like to express my pleasure that I am able to speak as a representative of the Republic of Slovenia, as a new Member State, in my Slovenian mother tongue. On the basis of my experiences of taking part in the Convention and my experiences during my one year stint as an observer in the European Parliament, I am absolutely convinced that it is crucially important that the European Constitution be adopted and implemented as soon as possible. The fundamental legitimacy of this exceptional document, which is without equal anywhere in the world, lies in the fact that it was accepted by a consensus in the Convention after lengthy preparations and discussions with the broadest possible participation of the national and European parliaments, governments, the European Commission, the civil service, social partners and others. Furthermore, I am firmly convinced that the early adoption and implementation of the European Constitution is a prerequisite for the effective, democratic and transparent functioning of the enlarged European Union. It is a prerequisite for the achievement of values and goals and also for the rapid and socially just development of a united Europe. The Constitution is vital if everyone's high expectations are to be fulfilled. This is particularly true in the new Member States. It is also important if the European Union is to play a greater role and if its social market model is to develop sustainably in the global world. Finally, with its assurance of balance in the functioning of the institutions of the European Union and particularly the enhanced role of the European Parliament and national parliaments, the European Constitution is an important condition for actually bringing the European Union and its citizens closer together. I therefore call upon the governments to demonstrate both courage and responsibility by adopting the final treaty as soon as possible at the Intergovernmental Conference, and, if possible, during the Irish Presidency, which has shown exceptional sensitivity and commitment.

Political group: PSE
Fundamental freedoms and rights must never be called into question. That is especially important in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism cannot be fought by curtailing democracy and human rights. According to the UN Charter, all Member States are bound by decisions taken by the UN Security Council. These decisions are binding but can never be absolute. There must be room for manoeuvre. The sanctions committee’s practice of accepting without qualification the United States’ list of individuals and organisations suspected of terrorism is not acceptable. The fact that the list, which is not made public, is approved by the sanctions committee if no one on the committee protests within 48 hours opens the way to unsubstantiated decisions. It is a case of fundamental freedoms and rights being eliminated by a non-judicial authority when the individuals concerned are neither informed of what they are being accused of nor given the opportunity to appeal against the decision. Parliament’s amendments are crucial in order to guarantee EU citizens legal certainty. I am therefore able to support the Council regulation only in such an amended form.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I would like to say that it takes real courage to tackle the substantial vested interest in the way that you have. Particularly when that interest is one that can plead consequences right across Europe in terms of our economic viability. Please do not let Europe's consumers down with undue delay in view of what you may have heard today. The principle of unripe time is always there to slow things down. New entrants to a multi-choice free-for-all will always be demonised as too rich or too unscrupulous. The fact of the matter is that we have never been able to bring about greater competition in any area, and I include the airlines, without some rich people and some people varied in their approach coming into a market which is being opened up. The small dealer is being invoked as a victim here, but he has much to gain from a reform of franchising, as Mrs Villiers has said. The choice we expect from any other sophisticated personal equipment, the competition we look for in the maintenance of our houses, our computers and, yes indeed, our second-hand cars, is condemned here. It should not be. This is a widening of choice. Commissioner, you should listen to what is said in this debate, but you probably have more support here than the debate itself will disclose. Stick to it!

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, when we see the Commission produce a proposal for which we in this Parliament have been fighting, such as the creation of a solidarity fund for communities affected by natural disasters, we must of course offer our most sincere congratulations. Some items in this proposal, however, are somewhat confusing, and I should like the Commissioner to clarify them. Firstly, why did the Commission decide to extend the coverage of this type of disaster in its proposal, to disasters of an environmental and technological nature? Secondly, the Structural Fund must under no circumstances be confused with this solidarity fund. This makes it hard to see on what basis the Structural Funds fall under this regulation. Would a general rule that cautioned against the dual use of the solidarity fund with measures already funded by any other instrument not suffice? Thirdly, the reference to absolute costs of disasters makes no sense, because this of course most benefits the large economies and, furthermore, it is hard to understand why no reference is made to the financial capacity of each State as a criterion for the aid to be granted by the Community. Lastly and most crucially, we fail to understand why the regulation gives no consideration to a clear typology for the situation of outermost regions that have been most badly affected by natural disasters and I would ask the Commissioner how they can, in fact, be covered by this proposal.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, Commissioner, smoking is dangerous both for people who smoke and for those in their vicinity. Even those who are not even born are harmed by the fact that their mothers or fathers smoke. Smoking is therefore very much a public health issue. We must therefore do everything to prevent people from starting smoking. I know what I am talking about, Mr Katiforis, for I, myself, have been a smoker. The words ‘public health’ do not even appear in the report. Mr Katiforis is a very intelligent and agreeable fellow MEP, but even intelligent MEPs are occasionally wrong. This time, Mr Katiforis is wrong. There is a lot of evidence to show that higher cigarette prices reduce the level of smoking. Less tobacco is consumed, and fewer young people begin smoking. In my country, the Public Health Institute has calculated that the one-off effect of the increase in cigarette prices in 1997 was to save 12 500 people from premature death, thanks to the fact that 100 000 people gave up smoking when cigarettes became more expensive. We are talking here simply about my own country, Sweden, which has only 9 million inhabitants. As is well known, taxes in Sweden are, moreover, significantly higher than in the EU generally. The arguments are therefore in favour of our being obliged to accept the Commission’s proposals. However, I do not believe it is sensible for the EU to support tobacco cultivation at the same time as great efforts are being made to prevent smoking and reduce the spread of cancer. We must be a little more consistent and not engage too much in double standards. I therefore hope that Parliament will support Mr Maaten’s amendment and, through it, the Commission’s proposal too, albeit in a somewhat stricter form.

Political group: ELDR
I would like to thank the Council very much for that reply, even though I feel it was not very full. I would like to ask the Council whether it would be willing to consider these measures due to be approved in the COMs as provisional, until we have the relevant information relating to the impact on employment in agriculture. I conclude from this response that there may be a negative effect on employment in agriculture and that the Council does not want this to come about. I would like to ask whether it would be possible for the Council to class these measures as provisional until their impact is evident.

Political group: PSE