GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, I fully agree with Mrs Palacio. The excellent report by Mr Di Lello deals thoroughly with all the important aspects of a complex problem which, however, needs to be solved swiftly so that the European Union can become an area of freedom, security and justice. The problem of mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters arises of course from the irreducible – at least in the short term, and here I agree with Mr Posselt – diversity of the legal and judicial systems of the various countries in the European Union. It can therefore be solved only if on the one hand we start from precise, shared definitions of the notions of final decision and criminal matters, which can apply to all the various systems – thorough definitions that are fully satisfactory are given in both the Commission communication and the Di Lello Finuoli report – and on the other hand if mutual trust is created among the Member States regarding the adequacy of each other’s systems of laws and the correctness of their procedures. Now, this trust may be founded on the shared respect for fundamental rights, ensured by, amongst other things, the supervision by the European Court of Human Rights, which may be further guaranteed by common minimum standards that may be adopted on specific aspects of procedural law in matters of respect for the right to a defence or victims’ rights. In addition, to overcome the irreconcilable nature of certain ideas of principle as regards the punishability of controversial acts – the examples of euthanasia or abortion have been given here – one simply needs to exclude mutual recognition in relation to a few limited and exceptional criminal acts. In this way we can overcome the traditional requirement of dual criminality and avoid the slowness and difficulties of having to decide on recognition for every decision in every country, which, I can personally assure Mr Posselt, is a slow process that really hinders the proper application of penalties, as my former experience as a magistrate can testify. Well, having thus properly set out the solution to the basic problem, the Di Lello Finuoli report then deals with technical and sensitive issues regarding the various ways of carrying out a sentence, the costs of carrying it out, and the system for calculating penalties in the event of multiple sentences, since they cannot always be simply added together when the crimes are connected, and suggests appropriate solutions, which can all be fully shared. I too therefore invite Parliament to approve this important and thoroughly well argued report without reservation. (Applause)

Political group: PSE
Madam President, the problem is that the event has been announced and Parliament does not appear on the poster, to put it in artistic and bullfighting terms. I therefore do not really know what the point is in you replying to this, since we are not even attending the event, let alone performing.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the crises are mounting, we have the dioxin crisis in Belgium and the soft drinks crisis with Coca-Cola amongst others. We have the continuing crisis of mad cow disease, Mr Fischler. And the crisis is not yet over. A reliable British magazine has reported that towards the end of 1998, the number of young people dying from the new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease quadrupled and yet we have no information on this matter. We do not know what is happening with mad cow disease in Portugal, yet we are hearing a great deal about hormone-treated meat from the United States and the intolerable pressures imposed on us with regard to its free movement. There was not even any fundamental and serious debate on genetically-modified foods prior to their becoming a part of our daily diet. As I read in a recent study, we do not ultimately know what we are eating. In fact, even our farmers and cattle breeders do not know what they are farming or how to feed their animals. It is all very disturbing and worrying, Mr President. The Parliament owes it to its citizens to do more than make accusations of criminal offences like the one committed by Belgium. It should also be noted, Mr Commissioner, that it hasn't yet made known those companies which used dioxin-contaminated cattle feed. This time, however, the Commission, having learned its lesson from mad cow disease, took Belgium to the European Court of Justice. However, we have still not discussed things fully and have not taken decisions on how to make controls tighter and more efficient, leaving them instead to the good will of the Member States. Although we are mindful of the fact that we are lacking infrastructure, veterinarians and inspectorates, we are well aware of the bribes and attempted bribes, the threats and the murders which have taken place in certain countries with regard to these issues – yet, I do not see anybody taking it seriously. We are also well aware that there have been strong reactions from the European Union itself to the establishment of a proper organisation to carry out spot-checks, along the lines of, for example, the American Food [amp] Drug Administration, instead of having non-specialised research bodies. What we need here is both transparency and public access to information. Therefore, Mr President, I strongly endorse our group's proposal for the Parliament to set up a temporary committee which will fully deal with all issues of food safety and public health and not just certain aspects of it.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Naturally we have voted against giving any discharge to the European Commission. We disapprove of both past budgets and the future budget, and of the very function of a Commission that is entirely in the service of industrial and financial groups. Our negative votes on individual points are merely a continuation of this general lack of confidence.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is this debate actually about? Quite simply, it is about the difficult task of finding a position which the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament, can agree on as regards a strategy for dealing with racism, and then representing this position at the world conference. The Commissioner has made constructive proposals on a sensitive issue, as has the author of the motion for a resolution, Mrs Ludford, and we will support them in this. But this debate should never be misused for other purposes. I am sorry to say that certain delegates have repeatedly done exactly that; for example there is one who only makes reference to one region in the fight against racism, thereby giving an exaggerated impression of the problems which exist on a European and worldwide scale. Mr Ford defamed my country, Austria, in his statement. He told me he had not read the Wise Men’s report, but that did not stop him from writing in his statement, with reference to the report of the Three Wise Men, that the problems of racism and xenophobia would endure. Had he read the report, he would have found that that is patently untrue. There are no problems there of the kind he describes. On the contrary, the report registers a very positive response to the government, because it is pursuing successful counter-strategies, some of which go beyond the standards set by other EU countries. I have here motions for resolutions that call, in general terms, for budgetary lines to be increased, without saying to what end, and without specifying which activities are to be the beneficiaries of this funding. Some of the demands are excessive, such as those calling for the level of immigration to be increased, and for illegal entrants to the Union to be placed on an equal legal footing. These are all things that work people into a state of panic, given the sensitivity of the issue. What we really need is a plan for tackling the root causes, immigration policy strategies that take account of integration capacity, and of an individual Member State’s absorption capacity, also strategies leading to a common asylum policy which help refugees whilst tackling abuse, and measures promoting integration. We ought not to be so superficial and submissive in our dealings with this issue. The matter is far too serious for that. As I see it, there is a great deal to be done, and those who want to work constructively on this issue are invited to take the proposals put forward by Commissioner Diamantopoulou and Mrs Ludford as their true example, and to disregard, or give a wide berth to unsuitable debates in plenary session, with a view to making progress in this area.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, before explaining why I voted against this document of the Stockholm European Council, I must explain why I am speaking in English. It is to make a present to the Italian interpreters, the Italian workers who, every day, have to work much more than the others to translate and put in writing my explanations of votes. I am doing this in recognition of their hard work. I voted against all Stockholm resolutions because there is no mention of the fact that European workers want to work less and have more time as pensioners.

Political group: PPE-DE
Unlike the rest of my group, I have decided to abstain from voting on this report. The main reason for this stems from the decision to raise the honourable Members’ salaries by a considerable amount. In the current social and political climate, not just in France but throughout Europe, this decision is unacceptable and unjustifiable. We are, first and foremost, representatives of the people. As such, our priorities are to promote the interests of our citizens and give concrete form to their expectations in Europe, especially in terms of increased democracy. I have decided to abstain rather than vote against the report because I believe that adopting a single statute for Members is a positive step towards a more united Europe, towards a truly shared destiny, and towards achieving equality for all. I would, however, have preferred to see the goal of equal pay, which this report attempts to impose from the top down, become a priority for European legislators through the adoption of a minimum European wage. It would thus affect our fellow citizens first and foremost.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, we have two Austrians and we have two cases where press laws have been violated. In this case, Mr Voggenhuber has been accused of having described Mr Haider as “a fascist and the FPÖ is a neo-fascist party. The FPÖ and Jörg Haider exhibit all the essential features of fascism. The authoritarian tendencies, the myth of the strong man, the rabble-rousing against minorities, racism, the description of foreigners as parasites, the description of welfare recipients as spongers, the description of his own nation as a monstrosity, the description of his own country as a ‘banana republic’. All this betrays an attitude of mind which has been played down here over many years. History will blame the ÖVP for bringing neo-fascism to power in Austria”. These are the words which have caused Mr Voggenhuber to be charged in the Austrian criminal courts. For the reasons which were mentioned previously in relation to the case involving Mr Sichrovsky, I must say that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market showed no hesitation in concluding that parliamentary immunity should not be waived. Parliamentary immunity is granted whenever there is a link, however tenuous, however slight, between what the Member of Parliament said and the expression of a political opinion and, in the case of Mr Voggenhuber, there is no doubt that he was expressing a political opinion, even if these political views were put in, admittedly, rather forthright terms, which may cause their target to react and which, evidently, provoke a reaction from their target. I believe that we simply must protect every Member’s right to free speech as well as the independence of our institution, especially when expressing purely political opinions in an unambiguous manner. However, I am taking this opportunity to say that in this case, just as and, perhaps even more importantly, in the previous case involving Mr Sichrovsky, that parliamentary immunity serves to protect the institution, and all Members of Parliament must see it their duty to protect the institution. If we also tone down our words, and this is something that applies to everyone, because we can say anything as long as we say it in a measured and courteous manner, we can help to protect the institution that we represent, to enhance its dignity and the way in which it is perceived in the outside world. This applies to Mr Sichrovsky in particular. In the case of Mr Voggenhuber, however, the Committee on Legal Affairs did not hesitate in deciding to propose to you, Mr President, that parliamentary immunity should not be waived for the reasons that I have given. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, I am somewhat concerned, not about Mr Daul's outstanding work, but about the method. The world of agriculture is going through a stage with which you are quite familiar and which I therefore do not need to describe again. We, in the world of agriculture, need to know what kind of market we are supposed to be building over the next ten years. Although, on the one hand, the rules imposed by globalisation – that is the opening-up of our markets – can on no account be extended, on the other hand, we must also take into full consideration what is an asset and a valuable resource for Europe as a whole. Well then, when we come to tackle this reform of the common organisation of the market, we must not wait for the horse to bolt before we fasten the stable door: the safeguard clause is going to expire next year. In the sugar sector, it is imperative for us to have a different relationship with the ACP countries but, at the same time, we are already working within Europe on a process of liberalisation, revising quotas and reducing export support, the implication of which is, however, that opening up the market will reduce competitiveness. Clearly, therefore, at a time of change such as this, if even the low cost sectors are damaged by agricultural policy interventions, there is certainly going to be some concern in the world of agriculture.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, my colleagues and I expressed our views on all the amendments seeking to improve the text. We were pleased to note a number of improvements but deeply regretted that a number of the proposed amendments did not succeed. This has strengthened our belief that the directive, far from encouraging dynamism and creativity, is giving in to the desire for bureaucracy to regulate inventiveness itself. It has not escaped our attention that this departure favours big financial and industrial groups. This is why we eventually voted against the report.

Political group: PSE
Commissioner, you have just made the very important point that consumers should be able to be confident. They should be able to be confident in all areas and that a whole raft of instruments seems to have been implemented to that end, particularly the White Paper on consumption and food safety. Today, in order to give more meaning to all the current thinking on consumer safety and in order to reconcile Europe with civil society, particularly that society which successfully made its views felt in Seattle and elsewhere, expressing its anxieties about food quality and food safety, could the Commission not take the initiative of organising a forum for a large-scale debate between, on the one hand, the responsible parties from the Commission, the representatives of governments and members of parliament, of course, but also the representatives of civil society, non-governmental organisations, consumers’ organisations, and professionals involved in the sector, in such a way as to ensure that these debates filter down to the European citizen? This would forestall fresh criticism of us as rather a remote body, a forum that does not sufficiently involve the citizen in all debates. Would you be in favour of establishing a forum of this kind?

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for insisting on having a debate on this issue because it is indeed a very important subject. May I also thank the Secretariat for scheduling this debate, yet again, at such a late hour, even though it means that some of us who started in this House at breakfast time have already been here for over 13 hours. I must confess that I am again in contravention of the EU Working Time Directive and, as a good European, I should not break European law. I am sure I would be in the Commission's bad books by so doing. I hope I will be forgiven, at least on this one occasion. Having said that, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the spirit in which he has approached this complicated subject and the way in which he has embraced amendments from all sides, certainly including some of my own. I would make just one tiny criticism – which I hope he will not take as nit-picking, as we say in the UK – but it is a compliment to him, rather than a criticism. I felt that his original version of one of the recitals was better than the compromise. Recital D stated ‘whereas it is neither necessary nor desirable and practicable to harmonise the rules for financial participation schemes, as this would impede the flexibility of Member States' policies’. That was absolutely spot on. But, as he knows, there was a compromise with the Group that stated ‘as yet neither necessary nor desirable and practicable to harmonise fully’. That was perhaps a mistake, because there is no need whatsoever to harmonise policies in this respect. We are exactly on the right lines as we are. But that is a very small point. I am very much in sympathy with the thrust of his report. Personally I will be supporting his report wholeheartedly and I shall be encouraging all my colleagues to do the same.

Political group: PPE-DE
This report should be seen as part of the process of creating an internal energy market for the EU, in response to the call made at the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 and reaffirmed at the Barcelona and Brussels Spring Councils, to speed up the process of liberalising the electricity and gas markets, which entails further deregulation of the market and stepping up cross-border trade between Member States. Furthermore, it seeks to speed up the privatisation of state-owned companies, given their historically dominant position in this sector and to speed up the process of concentrations and mergers at Community level. I have always been opposed to this process, not only for socioeconomic reasons and for reasons of quality and concerns about guarantees of public service provision, but also because this sector is of strategic importance to development, which affects the independence, sovereignty and security of energy. The Commission proposal therefore seeks to adapt VAT rules, in the field of gas and electricity, to the needs of the markets that have been liberalised. The amendments that have been proposed will essentially mean that taxes collected are returned to the Member States in which the final consumption takes place, thereby facilitating cross-border trade in energy. The ultimate aim remains, therefore, that of meeting the needs of the single European market in the energy sector. - Valdivielso de Cué report (A5-0130/2003)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Although we support the content of the report and are very sympathetic to victims of crime throughout Europe, I, as a British Conservative, have reservations regarding certain aspects of the report. I believe we have adequate protection for such victims under Article 6 of the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights, and this report is yet another example of unnecessary proposed European interference into an area which is already covered by agreements between Member States, as well as 25 other non-EU members of the Council of Europe. The British Conservative Party does not support EU prescriptive measures to harmonise criminal law in the EU which must remain the competence of the Member State.

Political group: PPE-DE
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – (FR) Mr President, I would like, if I may, to deliver very briefly a few comments on this report. It seems obvious that we need to completely rethink the organisation of air traffic control in the European sky. In this respect, the Commission’s initiative is commendable. A re-think is one thing, it is also obvious that everything must be carefully reviewed, but I think we should beware of a certain number of preconceived ideas found in reports, communications and speeches on this topic. It also seems obvious that the political division of the European sky no longer corresponds to the technical requirements and market requirements. I was extremely surprised to learn that in today’s Europe, political boundaries still prevail when it comes to the organisation of air traffic control. A European air traffic control space must be created, but must this area be completely unified, and according to which criteria? I have many doubts as to the conclusions of the report. It seems obvious to me that there are a number of advantages to dividing up air traffic control, as air traffic control involves segmenting the territory and technical security limits, but also human limitations mean that each air traffic controller, each control tower can only have a limited territory and a limited number of flights to monitor. In this respect, the cellular, segmented organisation of the European territory must be retained and, in a way, improved. I am therefore in favour of an increase in the number of air traffic control centres as, not the unification of the whole control system, but the unification of the legal system and also technological unification takes place, as this report, and the research behind the report, have highlighted the absence of European will... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PSE
The European Parliamentary Labour Party fully supports UN reform, including added permanent places in the Security Council for the African, Asian and Latin American groupings. But we differ with this resolution in relation to an EU seat and changes to the veto system. These we believe to prejudge the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference, and could risk less rather than more references to the UN itself. All of us want a strong United Nations.

Political group: PSE