GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, as a Cumbrian – born, bred and resident – and one of the representatives of north-west England, there is nobody in this Parliament who has been more affected by the reverberations arising from recent events at Sellafield than me. Let us be clear. There have been real lapses in the way in which it has been managed. Those lapses quite simply are not acceptable. Speaking as a Cumbrian I know a lot of people in my home county – which I have the privilege to represent – feel let down by British Nuclear Fuels. But as has already been pointed out, there have been no breaches of the law or of the regulator's rules and guidelines. In a society subject to the rule of law recent events cannot be used to close the plant. I know that there are many people who would like to see Sellafield closed down. In particular I know this is a very strongly held view in parts of Ireland. In a free society, if that is how people feel, they must be allowed to articulate their opinions. But that is no reason why the plant should be closed. There can be no question of any lawfully established enterprise in any part of the European Union being closed by the public authorities without its breaking the law. This true in Ireland, Denmark, the United Kingdom or any other Member State. The owners – that is to say the United Kingdom Government – and the employees of Sellafield have legitimate interests which quite simply cannot be swept under the carpet. This applies in this case just as much as to anybody else. Finally, just as the recent crisis at Sellafield has been self-inflicted, so the solution to it lies in British Nuclear Fuels' hands, as they themselves understand. I wish them well. But words are not enough. They must be matched by deeds – their deeds.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am in favour of the Haarder report in its entirety, including paragraph 38, and I am therefore departing from the line of the Group of the to which I belong, for I feel that the four points mentioned in paragraph 38 – the excessive length of time for which people are remanded in custody, the excessive length of time taken to complete trials, failure to separate the careers of investigating magistrates and judges and the risk of politically influenced magistrates dealing with politicians in public enquiries – are all matters for careful reflection which should lead us to vote for this motion. After all, I launched an attack on this subject when I was Italian Minister for Justice, and my right-hand man in that operation was the most important, the most famous and the greatest of all Italian magistrates, Giovanni Falcone. In the same way as I, or rather, we do, he maintained that it was necessary to separate the careers of magistrates, not, of course, in order to penalise them, but to differentiate between the activities of investigators, who are part of the prosecution, and judges, who have to guarantee balance and impartiality. I do not feel that the European Parliament’s intervention in this matter is abusive or excessive, but rather that it is a step towards guaranteeing the realisation of the concept, the vision of balanced European justice, especially with regard to the proper functioning of the public authorities.

Political group: PSE
Throughout the ages, mankind has had to consider how to guide scientific developments so as to bring them in line with ethical and social choices. This issue is all the more sensitive when it concerns human beings and genetic foundations. We must, therefore, be extremely cautious, without going so far as to be obscurantist. Given the present state of our knowledge and of the ethical debate, and in view of the UK Government’s unacceptable authorisation of human cloning, the first thing we must seek is a total and absolute moratorium on all experiments in human cloning. The second, after hearing the opinion of the European Committee on Ethics, is to define clear guidelines that guarantee human dignity. As they stand at present, I do not like any of the resolutions submitted by the groups. The Socialist Group is not calling strongly enough for an immediate stop to all human cloning. The PPE Group seems to be making a final judgment on such sensitive points of discussion as the distinction between reproductive and other cloning. In my opinion, however, I think it would be useful to obtain an analysis from the European Committee on Ethics on these points, in order to clarify the issues. The urgent nature of the subject should have demanded an effective approach: - an immediate and absolute moratorium; - in-depth reflection and a very wide-ranging basic debate prior to a directive laying down the rules to be adopted. That is not the case with the resolutions put to the vote today. I will therefore abstain on these motions for resolution.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, I would simply like to say that a series of significant errors have appeared in the Spanish version and I would be grateful if, before the vote on paragraphs 9, 30 and 146, you could allow me to take the floor to clear up these deficiencies.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, a positive acceleration is taking place in European political integration. The process of enlargement is a reality, just as the convening of the Convention is a reality; countless steps forward have been taken in the field of justice, as they have in the field of foreign and defence policy. However, this acceleration in political integration is not being matched by similar acceleration in economic integration, that is, in the creation of the markets on which political integration is based. It is strange, but we are witnessing a veritable inversion of the Community method. Indeed, from coal to steel, to the single currency, it has all been a succession of steps forward towards the building of a common home, starting with the foundations and working our way towards the roof. Now, while we are rushing to build the roof, we are extremely behind in the creation of markets which are crucial for the lives of the Europeans. There have been too many delays, too many failures, too much egotism: from electricity to gas, from telecommunications to Galileo to the Community patent. This lack of synchronisation between the physical dimension of the markets and the metaphysical political dimension could cost the process of European integration the citizens’ support. Indeed, the costs of losing political sovereignty are perceived to be too high and the benefits for businesses and consumers are considered to be too low, too limited. It would be as well, in order to avoid this danger, for European integration to be resumed according to the method of our founding fathers, free from contemptible egotism and without calculated, unnecessary leaps forward.

Political group: PPE-DE
I welcome the approval of the amendment – which we supported – condemning the action of the Spanish authorities preventing a group of Portuguese citizens, including a member of the Portuguese national parliament, from crossing the border in order to take part in an authorised demonstration in Seville, during the European Council meeting, because I believe that this action runs counter to the fundamental principles and freedoms enshrined in the Treaties. The joint motion, however, has many shortcomings, which we addressed in the motion tabled by the Confederal Group of the (but which, unfortunately, was rejected) and contains many negative aspects, specifically in failing to criticise the criminal justice and security aspects of immigration policy, in insisting on compliance with the Stability Pact and the monetary guidelines and in calling for the federalist approach to be extended in various aspects of Community policy. Consequently, despite the fact that we voted in favour of certain points, such as the amendment condemning the actions by the Spanish authorities at the Spanish-Portuguese border, we have voted against the joint motion.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, Commissioner, I wish to express my sympathy with your country and your people at this difficult time. The key date will be 1 May 2004. It is then that the new Europe will be built. Unfortunately, our celebrations are commencing, however, with all the Member States erecting new walls to keep out those who wish to come from the new Member States to the 15 current Member States. That is extremely depressing. I believe that this can be avoided. I do not therefore share the Commissioner’s view. The basic conditions are so different from one Member State to the next. As long as we do not have a common welfare system, common funding and a common tax system, it is only sensible for us in the new, large EU to take account of different national viewpoints. Doing so will not in any way endanger freedom of movement for workers. On the contrary. What is important is that, through these changes, we reduce the need for transitional rules. No one will be discriminated against. The situation is the same for Poles, Germans and Danes. The two most generous benefits in Sweden – parental benefit and child allowance – are paid to everyone who has children in Sweden. They are not earnings-linked, but are funded through tax. Most other countries have already safeguarded themselves and entered many benefits among the derogations in the annex. I would therefore request the House’s full support for Amendments Nos 9 to 12.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the main virtue of the report by Mr Miller is that it attempts a global approach. Thus, it is rightly considered that the strategy for the market, together with the broad economic policy guidelines and the employment guidelines, are one of the three means for promoting the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. Consequently, proper operation of the market presupposes acceptance of this basic political objective. If the Lisbon strategy failed to bring about the results we were expecting, this is due to ambiguity about its real content. We believe that, in the same way as competitiveness of the market is being proposed, the social dimension of the strategy for it should also be jointly evaluated without fear. Thus, competitiveness, in the sense of ‘competitiveness based on quality’ rather than ‘competitiveness based on eroding labour costs’, as well as being a governing principle for economic relations, will also become a general principle for all social relations. Only thus will it be possible for the European model to be exported and to play a leading role in the global market. If this strategic objective is accepted unreservedly, we can resolve the individual problems of malfunctions on the internal market more effectively. Our first concern is for the Member States to be convinced at long last that an internal market cannot function without advanced harmonisation of its legislation, including the lifting of tax barriers, and without increased responsibility for the application of the agreed rules without delay and without distortion. The current regime for monitoring the application of Community rules has failed and radical reform is needed. The second concern is to address the phenomena of the development of the internal market by just one section of the companies and the active population. Unless small- and medium-sized enterprises and consumers are brought on board, any decisions we take at European level will have limited results. Therefore, above all, we must see what it is that makes the man in the street opposed to the internal market and how we can link its future with the vision of Europe.

Political group: PSE
We have abstained from voting on Amendments 8, 16, 26 and 45, as we do not think that these amendments sufficiently reflect a good balance between, on the one hand, an effective reporting obligation to combat money laundering and, on the other hand, an advocate’s/lawyer's duty of confidentiality to his/her client and the obligations that this entails. It is important that an advocate/lawyer should not be covered by the reporting obligation when he/she represents a client in a case. However, it is more difficult to determine in which situations a lawyer/advocate shall be subject to the reporting obligation when he/she has access to relevant information in relation to so-called legal advice. We think that lawyers/advocates should, to a certain extent, be exempt from the reporting obligation, but the proposals from both the Commission and Parliament are not sufficiently balanced or precise in this respect for us to be able to support them. Finally, we would like to point out that the proposal has certain deficiencies with respect to definitions that could lead to confusion. In the proposal, the words advocate, independent lawyer and lawyer are used without it being clear what the distinction between these terms is intended to be. It is important to emphasise that lawyers must be considered equal to advocates in those countries that do not have the compulsory employment of counsel. - Lehne report (A5-0179/2000)

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Niebler for her excellent report. The radio spectrum has become a central means of communication, bringing with it money and power. With no standardised allocation procedures, we all know the result of the third generation mobile phone deals – one company in the sector is currently going bankrupt every week. In some Member States there were no charges at all, while others used hybrid systems. The result of all this is a confused situation, not to mention unemployment. This was supposed to give us a cutting edge in global competition. Because radio waves transcend borders, it is clear that we need common European principles to administer them since, to put it bluntly, fifteen different interpretations of the same thing is a barrier to marketing. The Electronic Europe strategy demands that everyone should be included on equal terms. This makes things considerably more difficult and conflict must be removed. At the same time, cultural diversity should be encouraged and in this regard I mean, for example, public radio broadcasting, which must be given the necessary frequencies. I approve of this kind of political decision making but when deciding on commercial issues we have to have a level playing field with the same procedure, whether this be auction or some other procedure, throughout the whole of Europe so that the system does not end up on the verge of collapse as it is now. For this reason I support Amendments Nos 22 and 23 and Mrs Mann’s oral amendment. I think that this will see us achieve a balance in these sub-areas and gain an understanding of what is important and what is business.

Political group: PSE
Mr President, the President-in-Office is quite right that we have to work on IMO relationships if we are going to get a reasonable agreement with other countries, but in fact the main thrust of the Council's requirements from the Commission following the Prestige accident has been to come forward with new regulations at EU level, which are essentially based on the double hull requirement for all tankers carrying heavy fuel oils. Is the President aware that there are about 4 000 vessels of this type under 5 000 tonnes in the world, and less than 200 of them have double hulls? How does he imagine we are going to replace those several thousand vessels in order that we can continue to provide Europe with its heavy fuel oils?

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first and foremost, I must apologise on behalf of my colleague Mrs Echerer, who felt unwell and has gone to see the doctor. So if I go over my allotted time slightly, I would like to pick up some of her speaking time. Needless to say, I can only congratulate Mr Veltroni on his first-rate report, which, as someone has just said, has come at a good time. In the past, as well as the present, Europe has taken a fairly progressive stance on the telecommunications front, when it comes to a European single market, and we are none the worse for that. I believe it is high time for us to take a look at the content side of things, because, unfortunately, Europe is still lagging behind a little in this respect. It is a marvellous idea to create a whole network that responds to the requirements of convergence, and which enables the public to receive information via a GSM, a computer or a television, but we must also be aware of what sort of information it is and, above all – and I am also thinking about what may be of positive value to our audiovisual industry – we must beware of being inundated by American products alone. After all, the fact is that our European cinema, as I have said on other occasions, is light years behind, and we cannot allow this situation to continue indefinitely, particularly in the light of the history of European cinema. I am not calling for quotas. I am calling for a European investment fund to be set up, which will enable the creative producers we have in Europe to at long last enter into real competition with America, in a manner which fully meets with the requirements of the free market. No, this is not regulation, it would simply be a means of enabling creative producers to get down to work in Europe, and a way of avoiding seeing all the talent, intelligence and capital – for this is the new trend – disappearing over to Hollywood. I would therefore like to ask the Commissioner whether she does not think that the time has come to work on a new directive for the cinema. Is it not time – since this is one of the distinguishing features of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport, which I belong to, – for us all to sit down together one day and consider how we are going to rescue the European film industry? And I repeat, this is not a petition for rules and regulations, this is taking a long, hard look at how films are made, for there is no mystery about it. Films cannot be made without a major injection of capital, and that is where we fall down in Europe. I believe this presents a unique opportunity for the European Investment Bank.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Madam President, on behalf of my Group, I would like to insist on Rule 115 and it is essential that it is checked how and when the translations were provided. However, in line with Mr Cox, I deem it slightly inconvenient if, for that reason, this text will be debated on Friday morning, because this will surely cause a moral dilemma for a number of people.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I would like to explain the votes on behalf of the Group. Our overriding objective was to get this very important report through as the first report communitarising European Community immigration laws and as a matter of justice to third-country nationals. We have therefore shown solidarity with other like-minded groups and Members. We supported the Socialist Group amendments to remove beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in the light of the Commissioner's pledge to bring forward a proposal covering them as well as beneficiaries of temporary protection. We would have preferred beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to stay in as a matter of principle, because they are long-term legal residents, but we decided to assist the passage of the report. Similarly, we abstained on matters concerning ascending relatives, because, wherever possible, we wish to remove objections so as to secure a clear majority for the report and recognise that the inclusion of such relatives raises particular problems for some Members. Some of us in my group, however, would have liked us to express a more generous stance. Mrs Malmström and Mrs van der Laan have asked me specifically to mention them in this connection. My group has deliberately voted to include unmarried partners if the Member State concerned legally recognises such partnerships, as I think three currently do. We think it to be only justice not to interfere with a domestic decision on legal recognition of such partnerships.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President I should like to thank President Prodi for coming here today. This is the fourth time running I have been here to listen to his presentation. Indeed, it is the fourth year running that his Commission has failed to get a positive statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors for its accounts, and the ninth time running that the Commission, as an entity, has failed to do so. I am aware that no one in Mr Prodi's Commission accepts political responsibility for anything, but am sure there are members of the Commission who have political antennae and can sense the mood of Parliament when it comes to the problems found at Eurostat and in the accounting system. I personally consider that Mr Prodi has weakened his position and the Commission's position by stepping into Italian domestic politics, which is something I am sure he should not be doing. I think he makes the Commission slightly more impotent by admitting that Commissioners currently have no political responsibility. With Eurostat he has shut the stable door too late, a long time after the horses have bolted, and is looking to blame the messengers rather than resolving the problem. However, I would like to talk very briefly about the whistleblowers' charter, which is something I know Mr Prodi mentioned in the Committee on Budgetary Control's meeting earlier today, because his Commission's biggest failing has been the way it has treated some of the whistleblowers. The Commission has been a kangaroo court. It has suspended those who raise questions and problems and has actually rewarded those who have been involved in covering these things up. I also want to be positive, because I know that ten new Commissioners will be coming into your midst as of May 2004. As well as wanting to see an independent OLAF, I would like the Commission to consider the possibility of one of those Commissioners assuming responsibility for budgetary control and the internal audit service of the Commission, because the sooner it is separated from the budgetary function itself, the sooner we may start to make headway as regards these problems.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first a brief word on a point of order. The vote has been brought forward to today, but Members have not been made aware of it. I think it is a little undemocratic that it is not possible to hold single separate votes or to ask for roll-call votes. The public will be very surprised and will say yet again how undemocratic this European Union is. I want to thank Mrs Schierhuber. She has made a clear distinction between humans and animals and I, too, would like to reject the disgusting comparison with the Holocaust. I would like to say something to Mr Adam. It is not correct to say that anyone who eats meat is a torturer of animals. You see, in Austria we have a national dish, Wiener Schnitzel, and if you come to Austria I can tell you precisely where the meat for it comes from, from the forest area of Lower Austria or from Styria. In most cases, that is only two or three hours away. In Austria, animals are allowed to be transported only for six hours. It is not necessary to torture animals if you want to eat them later. That is a change of thinking, and thinking is of course painful. You see, naturally have a perhaps rather different relationship with animals. For me, animals are God’s creatures and capable of suffering. I do not know whether you have saints, Mr Adam. My favourite saint is Francis of Assisi, and he did not only love people, he loved animals as well. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE